Libraries: Libri Report

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they respond to the report published by Libri, a charity for libraries, concerning the well-being of public libraries in the United Kingdom.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Libri report is a very useful contribution to debate on the future of public libraries, though its launch was marred by an intemperate press release. Libraries are not in near-terminal decline. In an age when society's need for information and knowledge is so significant, libraries have a key role to play. I expect to see a small, but significant, rise in the number of library visits when the 2002–03 annual public library statistics are published shortly, and that was before the People's Network project put computers into every library.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Nevertheless, does he share my concern that the Libri report suggests that some £200 million a year is wasted in poor management and administration, that only £9 out of £100 are spent on the book fund and that the Government's 1997 target for opening hours is still only two-thirds achieved? In the light of the proposed June summit meeting of those concerned with libraries, will he bring council leaders and chief executives to book to ensure that the worry expressed by Libri that the public library service will have a shelf life of only a further 15 years does not materialise?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would prefer to call my meeting in June a seminar rather than a summit. I think that summit is a bit grand. I will not call chief executives and leaders of councils to book; I will invite them to be present, which I think is more constructive. I will also invite Tim Coates, the author of the Libri report, and he will have an opportunity to defend his statements about the decline of libraries, some of which I have a good deal of doubt about.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Minister will recall that in a recent debate on the library service in your Lordships' House the Minister stated that something will have to be done about the problem that more money gets spent on administration than on frontline services. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has asked, will the Minister confirm what action is being taken to ensure that money will be spent on resources for libraries rather than on over-elaborate management?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a major issue that we will be discussing at the meeting to which I referred. Clearly, we need to have not only people responsible for running libraries at that meeting, but also people from outside libraries who have a contribution to make. People other than library staff have been invited, have accepted and will be present. It has to be said that the Libri report, which is very damning about some aspects of library services, is based on two things: first, a study of one library service in Hampshire and, secondly, statistics from the Audit Commission that are two years out of date. I am not as despondent as some people about this.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister encourage the House, and the wider audience, by saying that, although the developments in the way in which computers are now used in libraries are highly admirable, it is still the book that is the thing, particularly for older people? In many libraries there is a notable absence of buying of new titles. Would he agree with me that books, apart from information, produce an atmosphere that gives a library added value for people who are sometimes lonely or very poor?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are many things that libraries can offer, notably information technology and reference support, but the core of libraries is books. We must never forget that. It is important that spending on books should be kept up. At the same time, to keep the matter in context, books for purchase in booksellers are much cheaper than they were 100 years ago. One must look at what people read and whether they buy books or borrow books to discover whether literacy in this country is, as is wrongly alleged, in decline.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, are the Government not as worried as a lot of my friends and I are that young people are not reading as much as we did when we were young? When I was a young person I loved my books and got the greatest enjoyment from them, and education, I think. Are the Government worried on that point? It is no good having all the libraries in the world unless one can interest the young.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think it is true that the young are reading less than we did—well, they are reading less than the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, and I did. On the whole, I do not think that it is true that the young are reading less. If one goes into any public library, one will see that the children's library is thronged with young people. I think that libraries are a great success for children.

Lord Acton: My Lords, my noble friend said that, when the figures are available, he expects them to show a small increase in the number of library visits in 2002–03. What does that compare to? What was the number of library visits in 2001–02?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the statistics, but the fundamental point is that both library visits and book sales have been in decline for a number of years. That is the point that the Libri report addresses and which the Audit Commission has addressed. It is very serious. It is not terminal decline but it certainly is a significant and dangerous trend that we have to reverse. At the same time, if we look at public baths or other such facilities, we have moved from public to private provision in many areas: from the town hall clock to the wristwatch and so on. I think that libraries are surviving pretty well.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the plight of small rural libraries? As local authority budgets are pushed at the moment, those small branches, in particular, suffer from cuts in hours. It is not just the number of libraries and the number of books, it is the ability of local authorities to provide the all-hours service. It is not a lack of will on the part of local authorities, it is the lack of the funds to do so.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree that it is important that libraries should continue to be accessible, for example, mobile libraries and small local libraries in rural areas. What the Libri report seems to show is that it is not necessarily a matter of funds. There are other managerial issues that need to be taken into account. I was very frightened when I saw the threats of cuts in public libraries when council budgets were being formulated earlier this year, but most of those threats have gone away.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend have plans to enlist the help of the Audit Commission to tackle some of the issues of value for money within public libraries?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. In addition to its very valuable reports in 1997 and 2002, which are the statistical basis for the Libri report, the Audit Commission audits the cultural services of local authorities on a three-year cycle. It will be coming to my meeting and I shall certainly be looking to its audits as being the beginning of action rather than the end of it. I see this matter as commencement, not graduation, to use the American term.

Directory Inquiry Service: Competition

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What effect the opening of BT's directory inquiry service to competition has had on the number of inquiries made by telephone customers.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications, Ofcom, as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the chief executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the noble Lord and copies of the chief executive's letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer as far as it goes. In fact, however, all the published information shows that calls to directory inquiries have decreased very markedly since the introduction of competition to the sector. Moreover, subscribers dialling the number are often offered an inferior service and one where they can be misled into paying extra money for the calls they are making. Therefore, while I accept that it is a matter for Ofcom, I question the purpose of competition policy generally; whether the interests of the consumer should not always be paramount; and whether we are about protecting the interests of producers to the exclusion of consumers.
	I can give examples in the bus industry where the Office of Fair Trading pursues competition that is absolutely against what customers want. Customers want through journeys and through tickets. Those things are often not available because of the rigorous adherence to the theory of competition law. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about that.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the regulation of directory inquiries takes place through the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services and a code of practice with which the premium rate service providers have to comply. That is about the quality of the services, not about the commercial interests of the providers. ICSTIS has already fined several of the directory inquiry companies for breaches of the code of practice. So there is a regulatory system that requires that the code of practice is put into place.
	The number of calls has decreased. It is difficult to interpret that information as it has occurred against the background of a steady decline of about 15 per cent per year in the number of directory inquiries. The decline is not entirely surprising given the increase in the number of mobile phones and the development of the Internet, but the figures seem to have stabilised.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that while competition in the provision of services is generally good for the consumer and enhances consumer welfare, there might be exceptional cases? Perhaps our experience since the introduction of competition in this field demonstrates that, in place of the public service ethic, we have so-called "competition" and a number of companies have come into the field that are not capable of giving good service. If that has resulted in a decrease in the number of calls to the directory inquiries services, it would hardly be surprising, because the public have been suffering.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a very interesting situation. I do not think that the service that is being given is satisfactory. However, when one asks how the current service compares with the previous one in terms of accuracy, one learns that it is very much in line with the previous service. We should not take the romantic and charming view that we used to have a wonderful public service. We have had a rather consistently low standard of service both before and after this event. It is encouraging that Ofcom is now taking action by means of mystery shopping information to study the accuracy levels of the service so that appropriate action can be taken. That work was done in March and April and will be published in the next few weeks.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, who did the Minister ask about the satisfactory nature of the service? According to everyone I have asked, and based on my own experience, the service is appalling. There are at least twice as many mistakes as there were prior to this nonsense of the 118 numbers. It is also extremely expensive. So who did he ask, and who are these wonderful people who are getting such great service?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that that follows on from the information that I gave. I said very specifically that I do not think it is a good service. However, I think it extremely encouraging that Ofcom is now doing a proper mystery shopping exercise. The National Audit Office is also playing a part in developing the methodology for that so that we will have reliable information. I do not think it is a satisfactory service, but it follows on from a previously unsatisfactory situation. The important action is being taken, and it is not relying on anecdotal information but entails a proper survey. As I said, the survey will be published in the next few weeks so that people can see the situation and proper action can be taken.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the original 118 numbers are extant and how many have gone to the wall?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the number of service providers has remained fairly constant since the liberalisation.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when the new competition opened there was adverse press publicity indicating that, coupled with inaccuracies, the previously high charges had become extortionate? Was it not therefore almost inevitable that there would be a decline in the use of the service? I have not used directory inquiries since the introduction of the new numbers because of my fear that I will be taken for a big ride by whichever company I phone up. Is that not the problem that Ofcom will have to tackle?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the interesting factors here is that, before liberalisation, many people thought they were getting a free directory inquiries service. So the large amount of advertising saying that people will get a cheap service has probably put a lot of them off. That is one factor that has almost certainly influenced the situation. People thought they were getting a free service, but now there are other ways of obtaining the information.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, a free service is provided by at least one competitor. You do not pay One Tel for any inquiry, as it emphasises when you ring up its number—118 111, I think.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure Members of the House will be very grateful for that information about how they can proceed in future.

Palace of Westminster: Disability Legislation

Lord Addington: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether the House will implement forthcoming changes in disability law that do not automatically apply to the Palace of Westminster.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the House of Lords is committed to meeting all its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended by the Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment of Premises) Regulations 2001 which come into force on 1 October. The House will also take all reasonable steps to implement in practice provisions in legislation which do not automatically apply to the Palace to facilitate access for disabled Members, staff and members of the public.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he give me a further assurance that the House will ensure that—without being asked, taking a proactive stance—it has plans in place for future implementation? Will he also assure us that staff are properly covered in this respect as they are probably more important than Members to the efficient running of the place?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the obligation to staff is most important. In fact, the obligation on us regarding staff is different from that applying to Members, and the staff are actually better off than we are in this regard.
	As for future action that we might take, noble Lords will be, I hope, interested to know that the whole Palace was surveyed by specialists during 2003 and their report has recently been received. Planning is beginning to implement recommended improvements for access and use of the premises by people with disabilities. This will cover areas to which the public are admitted and areas used by Members and staff of the two Houses subject to the tests of reasonableness. These matters will initially be considered by the domestic committees of the House, and English Heritage and Westminster City Council will be consulted as appropriate on listed building and planning issues. Provision for these works is included in the estate's rolling programme.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that, last Tuesday, Anne Begg, the Member for Aberdeen South, who uses a wheelchair, was on her way to a reception at the Cholmondeley Room when it was pouring with rain outside and she got stuck in one of the lifts? Is he aware that the other place now has better facilities, with new lifts, than our House?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific incident to which the noble Baroness referred. We are obviously much constrained by the size of lift shafts and so on, the fact that this is a listed building and that it is sometimes difficult to make changes which would otherwise be desirable. However, I can certainly look into the question of access to the Cholmondeley Room. While there is wheelchair access available, it may sometimes be necessary to go rather a long way around, I am afraid. In view of the question on St Mary Undercroft that the noble Baroness asked last time this subject was raised, she may be pleased to know that the lift to St Mary Undercroft is now up and running.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are keen to support the endeavours of the various domestic committees to ensure that the Palace complies with legislation, even if it is not obliged to. Clearly, that is right. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to staff in addition to Members; but is it not the public areas which pose some of the most difficult problems, particularly giving the public access to the galleries, given the nature of this listed building that we occupy? I am sure that the Chairman of Committees will appreciate that.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, indeed, I do. Unfortunately, it is not possible to arrange wheelchair access to our gallery here, because of the constraints of building and planning controls, but I remind your Lordships that there are four places available for wheelchairs below the Bar which are used quite regularly.

Civil Partnership Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Civil Partnership Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 35, Schedules 1 to 3, Clauses 36 to 68, Schedule 4, Clause 69, Schedules 5 to 7, Clauses 70 to 78, Schedule 8, Clause 79, Schedule 9, Clauses 80 to 82, Schedule 10, Clauses 83 to 121, Schedule 11, Clauses 122 to 132, Schedule 12, Clauses 133 to 139, Schedule 13, Clauses 140 to 153, Schedule 14, Clauses 154 to 182, Schedule 15, Clause 183, Schedule 16, Clauses 184 to 186, Schedule 17, Clauses 187 and 188, Schedule 18, Clause 189, Schedule 19, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedules 20 to 22, Clauses 194 to 196.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [HL]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 2 [General function of Commissioner]:

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 2, line 6, at end insert "including the need for a nutritious diet"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: The purpose of Amendment No. 25 is to have on the face of the Bill recognition that an important part of children's well-being is a need for a balanced and nutritious diet. My amendment is supported by a number of children's and other organisations concerned at the growing impact of poor diet on children's health. It was suggested to me by Which? and is supported by the National Union of Teachers.
	In 2002 the Chief Medical Officer for England described childhood obesity as a public health time bomb. Since then public concern has grown. Already, as Which? magazine has pointed out, 8.5 per cent of 6 year-olds and 15 per cent of 15 year-olds are obese and that trend is undoubtedly upwards. Earlier this year your Lordships held a useful debate on the dangers of marketing goods on TV, particularly those aimed at young children. I know that another debate took place in this House only last night, although, unfortunately, I have not yet had time to read it. Articles continue to appear in the press, which also testify to the growing concern.
	Children are certainly bombarded with images of foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt. Huge sums of money are spent on promoting goods to children and that is clearly having an effect on children's food preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption. Indeed, research by Which? tells us that food advertisements aimed at children can be even higher in fat, sugar and salt than the adult versions. In general a far more responsible approach when marketing food to children is needed, along with improved information and education to enable children to learn what is healthy and unhealthy and to encourage them to eat a balanced and nutritious diet.
	The Children's Commissioner for England will be in a key position to influence policy and, therefore, should play a role across government in ensuring that all children, especially those from less affluent backgrounds, have access to a nutritious diet. There needs to be a strong voice for children at the heart of the continuing debate on how to tackle the obesity crisis. I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that this strong voice will be that of the Children's Commissioner for England. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 26 and 91, which concerns housing. There are two sections of amendments within my groupings.
	At Second Reading the Minister said, with reference to arts, music and sport,
	"We believe we capture those in the language of social well-being, but, again, we are happy to discuss this and make it as clear as possible".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1302.]
	The Minister will not be surprised that I have tabled my amendment. I think that we all agree that children need to play. They need especially in early years to be able to play in as unconstructed a way as possible. Adults should obviously protect them from public danger, traffic, fire, sharp instruments and so on, but should allow them free rein to use their imaginations. I was struck at Second Reading by the excellent contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who is in his place and will probably speak to the amendment. I smiled when he referred to the empty cardboard box, because I recalled my children's youth. While they had other bought toys to play with, the big cornflakes packet was always a favourite with them. Later in his contribution the noble Lord rightly said,
	"Through play, children learn their strengths and weaknesses, establish and develop their identity and learn to work with others. Play allows children to explore their imagination; it teaches them empathy, how to interact and make friendships; it teaches them what is socially acceptable and what is not".—[Official Report, 30/3/04, col. 1235.]
	I emphasise that because I would have liked to have enlarged on it when I responded at Second Reading. I shall not repeat the rest of what the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, because I do not wish to steal his thunder. But that quote highlighted the reason why play was so important.
	During my years of teaching tennis to children of all ages and from different backgrounds, the joy of achieving co-ordination between ball and racquet was exciting to behold. Whether a child went on to become an accomplished player at school, club or county level was up to them. But, rather like learning to ride a bike, confidence is established when balance and speed are achieved.
	Sport or play gives children a chance to explore, to learn new skills and, once achieved, gives that child confidence to tackle other opportunities. Sport and play encourage children to interact with each other. Training is an essential part of life, but the role of the Children's Commissioner must encompass the fullness of a child's needs. We agree that it must cover education, but feel that, in the context of the child, play and recreation is to education as training is to the personal development of an adult.
	My amendment has been supported by many organisations including the Children's Society, Mencap, the Disability Rights Commission, Church Lads and Church Girls Brigade and the National Children's Bureau—the last of which said:
	"Education and training lacks the more creative aspects implicit in enjoying and achieving, including the opportunity to participate in play and recreation".
	I know that Amendment No. 27 would leave in "training" and add "play and recreation". Although our amendment would not do that, I have no difficulty with that alternative.
	My other amendment refers to housing. There has been a tradition in this country that a career in journalism should begin on a local paper, down among the wedding pages, the amateur dramatic reports and three paragraphs of prose on the local church fete. We perhaps scoff at that, but local papers report on matters of concern to local people—I nearly said "real people". Pick up any local paper and study one month's editions. I would be amazed if you did not find at least one reference to a sorrowing, often single, mother condemned to living in council accommodation that leaks, smells and was left in a disgusting state by the previous tenant. Ask in the Library for figures of council houses that are still empty after more than six, 12 or 20 weeks and then ask why in a Parliamentary Question. I have done it and continue to do so. Often the Answer has something to do with waiting to renovate, repair or refurbish, but I believe that more action could be taken in that regard.
	There is a large stock of houses that are empty, mainly due to lack of funds to maintain them or to go to court to instigate their reuse. Many children would welcome the opportunity to live in those houses. When new housing is designed, particularly in the public sector, what guidelines are there to ensure that children's needs are even considered, let alone met? In our many debates on housing—we shall have one in a week on Wednesday—the link between poor housing and poor health is well understood. I am sure that no Member of the Committee is unaware of his home: four walls, a roof and a stout door. It is crucial to one's security, well-being and mental health. I hear constantly that many of those unfortunate enough to live on the streets survived divorce, redundancy or imprisonment but when their home went so did their spirit. Housing is central to the role of children's services and authorities and should be included in the Bill.
	My thoughts are strongly supported by Shelter, which raised the issue in its recent magazine. Adam Sampson, director of Shelter, says:
	"There is a hidden housing crisis in Britain, and over a million children are suffering the devastating consequences on health, their education and their chances in life. It is time for housing to be put back on the political agenda along with education and health where it belongs".
	I could raise many other issues relating to that article but I think that I have said enough. I urge the Minister to respond favourably.

Lord Pendry: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 88, standing in my name, which follow my Second Reading speech. They would establish legal recognition that play and recreation are essential to the development of happy, healthy, balanced children, and oblige local authorities to work with partners to do all they can to stimulate and safeguard opportunities for all children to play. My amendments would not change the current wording of the Bill; they would merely add to its content, leaving in the word "training". It is for others to argue to the contrary. I believe that the words "education and training" should remain but I strongly advocate the inclusion alongside them of the words "play and recreation", for reasons that I shall explain later.
	The amendments are supported by the Children's Play Council, SkillsActive and a vast section of the children's sector. At Second Reading the Minister expressed sympathy with the aims of the amendment. In subsequent correspondence with interested parties it is plain that the Government are seized of the importance to children of play and recreation. However, correspondence and dialogue with interested parties are two different things—I shall refer to that later. It is to the Government's credit, however, that they have taken important steps in the right direction for children's play, with the Children's Fund, Positive Activities for Young People and the recent Play Review carried out by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to name but a few. Nevertheless it is time for the Government to consolidate that action and bring together their somewhat piecemeal approach in a more solid, legislative contribution to children and play.
	Will the Minister look again at the wording of the Bill in relation to the outcomes outlined in the Green Paper and in the light of the recent representations that I have received? As she knows, during the consultation, children and young people told the Department for Education and Skills that, of the five proposed outcomes, enjoyment and achievement were overwhelmingly the most important to them. Although that related partly to education, it referred primarily to free-time activities. Although that is reflected in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, it is not fully included in the Bill. At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, suggested that the outcomes of enjoyment and achievement were encompassed in social and economic well-being and education and training. Neither I nor the organisations from which I have received representations believe that to be an adequate or accurate reflection of the qualitative meaning of the outcomes. I shall explain why.
	First, services to promote children's social well-being are currently seen as those provided by social services departments and tend to focus on early development, family support and improving living circumstances. They do not encompass provision for children's enjoyment of their free time through play and recreational activities. Secondly, although education and training might contribute to children's enjoyment and achievement, they are not enough. School-age children and young people spend only 25 per cent of their working hours in compulsory education. For much of the rest of the time they should be enjoying themselves, learning and developing through play and recreational activities. During the Children's Play Council consultation, one child said:
	"We want something good and fun. We do not want people telling us what to do all the time. That is what happens all day at school. You need it to be different".
	Children are clear about the different roles that school and recreational activities have in their lives. The Bill is not clear on that. Research shows how in the modern world many opportunities to play, which Members of the Committee perhaps took for granted in their youth, are being lost to the children of today. I do not have time today to go into the details of many of the ways in which those opportunities are being lost. Nor do I have time to outline the ways in which play is intrinsic to the healthy development of children, or the ways in which it contributes to every other outcome in the Green Paper. However, unless play and recreation are included in the Bill, we are at risk of missing the wood for the trees, as it were, letting children down by missing yet another opportunity to enhance significantly yet simply the quality of life for children of this country.
	In her winding-up speech at Second Reading, the Minister said that she would be "happy to discuss" the concerns raised at that time in order to make it "as clear as possible". Clearly, she has been unable to satisfy a number of the organisations that made representations to others and me. To what extent did she discuss the matter with the Children's Council, SkillsActive, the National Children's Bureau, 4Children, Groundwork UK, Learning Through Landscapes, the National Playing Fields Association, Mencap, the National Youth Agency, PLAYLINK and the Children's Society? Had she had meaningful discussions with those organisations I believe that she would have reconsidered her stance on including "play and recreation" in the Bill. I and, I am sure, others would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I apologise for being a little late and missing the beginning of my noble friend Lady Howe's Amendment No. 25. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that Starred Questions were cut rather short. Mind you, the first time I was ever off in the theatre when I was a junior actor, the Theatre Royal Nottingham cut the interval because it was a very poor house, and I was busy ogling the girls at the Empire Theatre opposite—Chu-Chin-Chow was then playing—and I was reprimanded very severely by Donald Wolfit and have never forgiven myself for being late for any occasion since.
	I rise to support Amendments Nos. 27 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, which I regret to say I prefer to Amendments Nos. 26 and 87, because the words "and training" are still included. Play and recreation are vital to the well-being of all children, but especially to children with learning disabilities. Yet in a recent study it was found that eight out of 10 parents of such children reported that they could not go to local clubs or enjoy play facilities, because of access or awareness issues. Furthermore, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, I can assure the House that a number of major organisations, including Mencap, of which I have the honour to be president, felt that the Government's current phrase "education training" does not do sufficient justice to the Every Child Matters outcome, "enjoying and achieving". I am therefore very happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and I trust that it will be accepted.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 88 and 188, all of which seek to add "play and recreation" to the duties of the commissioner under Clause 2, and the children's services authority under Clause 6. I also speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 92, which seek to remind those same people of the vulnerability of young minds to advertising and mass marketing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have eloquently set out reasons why we should include "play and recreation". It is very timely, when exercise as well as diet are being advocated for us all, both to combat the problems of obesity among the population, and to promote health.
	It is important that "training" should be left on the face of the Bill. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has agreed that we should not eliminate it. We shall be debating precisely what definition we give in age terms to the word "children" later, but it is quite clear that those who are aged 14 to 17 are included, and it is important that we think not just about their education, but about their training, particularly of some of those whose training has been forgotten—the looked-after children. There is a sad history of failure on the part of the state to fulfil its responsibilities of training vulnerable and looked-after children. I certainly do not wish to give priority to "training" over "play and recreation", however. My preference was, therefore, that we kept "education and training" and added the words "play and recreation" to the face of the Bill.
	It is also important because we are increasingly conscious of the importance of the early years in a child's development, and the need in those years for children to indulge in the creative, imaginative play that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, spoke about. The teaching, not just of children in how to play, but of parents in how to teach children how to play, is a very important part of the Sure Start agenda that we all support. Given this importance to the later development of children, it is vital that these words are on the face of the Bill. In Scandinavian countries, formal education—the teaching of reading and writing—does not begin until the age of six. A growing number of people in this country argue that we should adopt the same position in Britain. If we look at OECD studies of achievement, we see that countries like Finland and Denmark top the list of achievement in later years. It is vital for children to get over those early stages of learning, which come from imaginative play, before they move on to number and literacy work.
	We on these Benches have put forward Amendments Nos. 29 and 92 on behalf of the NUT, because we share its concerns about the effects of mass marketing on children's health and well-being, and their ability to learn and develop as young adults. Other speakers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, have already spoken about the need for a nutritious diet. Our concern in these amendments is with the vulnerability of young minds to advertising and mass marketing. This is true both in terms of their pressurising parents for particular foods, chocolate bars and toys, and in terms of pressurising schools to participate in marketing campaigns. Schools are being targeted with increasingly sophisticated materials, presented as educational resources. Over £300 million a year is now being spent by large companies in targeting classroom sales. Many children's food products include fundraising offers for school books, equipment and sports clothing. The National Audit Office has expressed concern that the product involved in the Walkers "Free Books for Schools" scheme detracts from healthy eating messages. In its report Tackling Obesity in England, it refers to the risk that some schemes may encourage children and their families to buy more snack foods with a high fat, salt and sugar content.
	The link between food promotion and children's eating patterns is confirmed in the Food Standards Agency's report Does Food Promotion Influence Children?, a systematic review of the evidence. Published in September 2003 by the University of Strathclyde, the report concluded that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchasing behaviour and consumption. These effects are apparent not just for different brands, but for different types of food. They affect whether children buy a chocolate bar or a piece of fruit.
	The purpose of these two amendments is to probe the role of the Children's Commissioner in Clause 2 and the role of the children's services authority in Clause 6 in regulating the promotion of products for children. How far will the work of the commissioner influence that carried out by bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority and Ofcom? Will such bodies be required formally to consult with the commissioner and the children's services authority on a regular basis? Will the commissioner and the children's services authority have places on the Advertising Standards Council and the Ofcom consumer panel?

Lord Chan: I support Amendment No. 25 in the name of my noble friend Lady Howe. I regret that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, although I had my name on the list of speakers. I had to return to Merseyside for an early morning meeting the next day, where we discussed issues of our deprived and underprivileged families in those areas where we are still trying to tackle health inequalities. It is clear that the physical and mental health issues do not cover the well-being of children, because they tend to be seen as areas where one has to use clinical skills to assist.
	The preventive aspects of public healthcare, with particular regard to the health of children, begin before birth and certainly exist at birth and onwards. That is not covered unless one highlights the need for a nutritious diet. Mothers should be aware that they ought to eat well and wisely during pregnancy. We should take the opportunity to go across the work of various departments. We have mentioned Sure Start many times, and I shall mention it again: it does wonderful work, particularly among people who do not get access to our services and suffer in silence. Their children, in particular, suffer long-term disadvantage.
	The reference to the need for a nutritious diet would remind not only industry, advertisers, schools and local government but individuals. That way, all aspects of living will be taken into consideration. I support the amendment also because it would mean that we would take steps to assist people in their choice of food and in how to live well on a low income. That skill will not be covered, if we think only in terms of physical well-being and health.
	There are other measures that I wish to support. I would welcome the addition, through Amendment No. 27, of a reference to "play and recreation". Training is part of education and is extra to education, but play and recreation are essential parts of our interest in the well-being of the young baby, the infant and the very young child. For all those reasons, they are important amendments, and we should support their inclusion in the Bill.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I urge the Government to accept Amendments Nos. 27 and 88, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. It is, perhaps, appropriate that the amendments should have been tabled by a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly government, when in coalition, produced a Welsh play policy, which I commend for the Committee's consideration. That policy was based on the principle that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should be followed in recognising the importance of play.
	The policy set out the means by which the principles should be achieved. The Assembly government said that the policy statement on play and recreation was,
	"predicated upon the principles that: every child is entitled to respect for their own unique combination of qualities and capabilities; the perceptions of the child, their views and opinions should always be respected for each child is connected to, and a bearer of, a wider culture; the child's free choice of their own play is a critical factor in enriching their learning and contributing to their well-being and development".
	Having produced that policy, they formed the Welsh Assembly government play policy implementation group, which carries forward the policy in important practical respects. The group includes the Sports Council for Wales, Play Wales, an organisation called Funky Dragon, which sounds interesting and entertaining, and many other organisations concerned with recreation and sport.
	I mention that to the Committee for two reasons: because we will propose that similar wording be added to Clause 20 and to illustrate how, in this respect, the Welsh Assembly government are ahead of what is going on in England. If the Government do not accept the principles, we may see different results on the playing fields in a few years' time.

Lord Northbourne: I support Amendments Nos. 27 and 29. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, in whose name Amendment No. 27 stands, I suggest that play and recreation are education. They are a fundamental and essential part of education. I refer to play and recreation for children not only before they go to school but during the whole time that they are growing up. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could confirm that that is the view of the Department for Education and Skills. None the less, I support the amendment because many people do not understand that, and it is important that we should have it in the Bill.
	With regard to Amendment No. 29, I endorse the importance of the advertising issue. I draw to the Committee's attention the excellent debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote on 14 January. The arguments were well set out in that debate.

Lord Elton: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just said. My principal interest in the Bill is to minimise the number of children drawn into crime. The route into crime starts early in life and often relates to frustration at failure to achieve anything satisfactory in any area of activity.
	Play is an area in which people learn to achieve and to socialise, which are two essential ingredients of a healthy and integrated life as a member of society. It would be good to have the amendment in the Bill. That is all that I will say at this stage, but I impress on the Committee that it is of fundamental importance that the commissioner and the legislators should understand that free play is a most important part of building up the character of a good citizen. The same goes for sport, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, ably said.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I was in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and the times on the monitor and on my watch did not quite coincide. I apologise to the Committee for being late for the start of the debate on these important amendments.
	I shall speak in support, in particular, of Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 88, and I shall ask the Minister a question on Amendment No. 92. With regard to Amendment No. 25, I remind the Committee of our debate on the threat that obesity poses to the health of the nation and the importance of establishing good nutritional patterns early on. Incredible damage is done to children who become obese, not only to their health but to all aspects of their well-being.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 88 are extremely important. We have been concerned about play opportunities for children in Wales and about the gradual, inexorable erosion of free play facilities. It is apparent that children's play needs are not being provided for. There is an opportunity here for the Government to take the lead through legislation that recognises children's play for its own worth and as being as important as formal education, hence the requirement to have the wording differentiate between play and the educational aspects of a child's life.
	It is the nature of our society that children's needs are subsumed in those of adults. In past years, provision for children's play has become more and more depleted. In our outcome-oriented world, play appears to be an aimless activity engendering fun, rather than producing tangible results. Nothing is further from the truth. Play is critically important to all children in the development of their physical, social, mental, emotional and creative skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, that has been articulated in the Welsh Assembly government's play policy.
	Among a number of recommendations from that policy implementation group, the first and most important one is,
	"that the Welsh Assembly Government place a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide for children's play needs to meet national minimum standards".
	It is therefore very important that an English/UK commissioner has that embodied as a core function.
	This proposal will contribute to what might be regarded by some as a paradigm shift in the way that children's play needs are perceived by society, becoming an issue of entitlement rather than discretion.
	Perhaps I may turn briefly to training. Children need to be trained to live independently. Those who are in care or custody or those without family role models need to be trained in all aspects of personal welfare. They need to be trained in financial management. I suggest that this should also extend to training in parenting skills, which they have not experienced.
	There are an alarming number of teenage and under-age pregnancies, which are often a desperate need for love. But, of course, a baby is not a compliant dolly. A baby in a household increases stress enormously. There is good evidence to indicate that those children who have been trained with responsive dolls learn the reality of having a baby versus the reality of receiving love, for which they are desperate.
	I now turn briefly to Amendment No. 92. The Minister generously accepted Amendment No. 39 when we were previously in Committee, which means that due regard to the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is now a core function of the England/UK commissioner. I wonder whether the amendments concerning the commissioner's role and function may, in some way, prove to be superfluous. I hope that I will not receive that answer, although play and recreation are covered in Article 31 of the UN convention. To be free of exploitation is contained within various other articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	Perhaps the Minister could also confirm that exploitation of children for the advertising promotion of products would be an infringement of those rights and would therefore be against the law when the Bill is passed. There is a very important intention behind Amendment No. 92, which reflects the pressures in our economically-driven, profit-motivated, consumer society to enlist children in that profit creation process when they are too young and without adequate experience, role models or training to differentiate between being exploited with temptation and being offered something from which they can choose.

Baroness Strange: I shall speak briefly and I declare an interest as a mother and a grandmother. In particular, I support Amendment No. 25. Play is very important to children. It is the outward, physical expression of what they feel and think inside and enables them to relate to the world as they begin to grow. I think that all children start with imagining things: for example, yesterday, I was eating imaginary grapes with my grandson. I said that they were delicious. He said that he was glad I liked them. Children do that. It comes from inside them; it is what is going outside. It is very important that they should have the opportunity to play and to stretch their imagination and spirit as they grow.

Lord Adebowale: Amendment No. 90 would apply to Clause 6(3). I declare an interest. My organisation, Turning Point, works with about 20,000 children and young people every year. I also express my gratitude to the End Child Poverty Campaign and the Local Government Association, which support the amendment. We discuss this issue in the context of about 3.6 million children in the UK who are living below the poverty line. The eradication of child poverty is one of the Government's most significant pledges.
	In my experience, child poverty impacts significantly on other aspects of a child's life. We know that children living in poverty today are far more likely to be substance misusers, are far more likely to be affected by the criminal justice system and are more likely to live in poor housing conditions. While we know that no child's destiny is set in stone, we also know that children who grow up in poor households are more likely to leave school at 16 with lower than average educational attainment, have poor health, come into contact with the police, be unemployed as young adults, have very low expectations for the future and end up earning relatively low wages. We are told that poor children are 15 times more likely to die in a house fire than better-off children, and three times more likely to be hit by a car.
	Ending child poverty will require more than using income transfers to lift those families living in poverty just above an arbitrary poverty line. It requires that public services ensure that poor people living in poor areas are not condemned to poor public services. It is too often the case that those in the greatest need of help and support are the least likely to receive it. That is called the inverse care law.
	Local authorities have a crucial role in tackling child poverty through the commissioning and delivery of services. Poverty has a debilitating impact on children's lives. It affects their mental and physical health, their educational prospects, their social relationships and their perception of the opportunities and choices that are open to them. Each authority must have specified focus on children living in poverty.
	I am pleased to say that such a focus would be welcomed by the local authorities. In addition to its support for this amendment, the Local Government Association has signed up to the Government's pledge to end child poverty by,
	"Improving the quality of life for children, young people and families at risk, by tackling child poverty, maximising the life chances of children in care or in need and strengthening protection for children at risk of abuse".
	The amendment seeks to ensure that such a commitment is specifically reflected in the work of local authorities and their relevant partners across the country. By supporting the amendment, the Government would confirm their 1999 pledge to end child poverty in a generation. It is a small but significant change. It would have significant impact on denying the impact of the inverse care law.

Lord Wright of Richmond: I hope that it is not out of order for me to intervene briefly to refer to the tragic death last week of Lady Brigstocke. She was chairman of a charity of which I am a trustee, which was set up five years ago to promote the principles of Home-Start UK. I am sure that many of your Lordships know that the charity is designed to help families in trouble of any sort. It helps both children and parents, but particularly parents of children under the age of five. A large core of volunteers helps to run this charity. We set up Home-Start International to promote the principles of Home-Start UK. I pay tribute to the extraordinary achievement of Lady Brigstocke in this regard.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I reciprocate those comments about the late Lady Brigstocke and her brilliant headship, as well as her voluntary activities. In this group of amendments, there are many worthwhile points. I should like to speak briefly about the emphasis on play and recreation. A number of Members of the Committee have rightly emphasised the social benefits of incorporating an amendment about play and recreation. That is perfectly proper for a legislative body. Social benefits, developing imagination, developing social skills, and developing the capacity for learning in later life are all very proper.
	However, there is a paradox because play and recreation are worthwhile in themselves. From these Benches, we want to emphasise that in the culture and civilisation that we share, certain things are regarded as fundamentally worthwhile in themselves for themselves. While as legislators we stress quite properly social benefits and social consequences in a utilitarian way, it is still important to stress that certain things in life are fundamentally worthwhile for their own sake. Among those are play and recreation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, paying tribute to Lady Brigstocke. Her work within HomeStart was exceptionally important. Indeed, I plan to refer to her again later today when we talk about that organisation. I know that the House will join me in sending condolences to her family and to Brian Waller, the chief executive of HomeStart, who was in Greece when the tragedy occurred. It has been a terrible trauma and shock to all. The exceptional work undertaken by Lady Brigstocke means that a significant hole has been created in the organisation.
	The debate on this group of amendments has been particularly important as it goes to the heart of something in the Bill of which I am especially proud; that is, our attempt—I use the word advisedly—to place legislative provisions within a context that has been given to us directly by children and young people. To my knowledge, although I stand corrected if noble Lords know otherwise, this is the first time that that has been done in legislation and it is very important. It also recognises that the work we do for children should be about outcomes for children rather than processes. I am sure that all noble Lords would support that.
	In Clauses 2 and 6 we have proposed an explanation of well-being that reflects the outcomes that children and young people have told us are important to them. As I have said, this is a key concept that defines the breadth of ambition that we have for children and young people. The outcomes were developed as part of a wide-ranging consultation undertaken in 2002 by the Children and Young People's Unit. Over 2,500 children contributed to that consultation. We asked them to comment on key aspects of their lives, ones that were important to them. We talked to children aged as young as four and up through the age range.
	The term "well-being" is designed to frame what I describe as a new partnership culture in children's services which we want to see reflected in our targets and standards, including those under the National Service Framework for Children, and through the new inspection regime to the important long-term programme for reforming the children's workforce.
	So I understand absolutely the wish of noble Lords to ensure that a range of important issues is covered. I am very sympathetic to the various concerns that underlie this group of amendments. However, I want to say up front that I want to avoid restricting the scope of what is covered by the definition of "well-being". It intentionally sets a broad framework in Clause 2 within which the commissioner can focus his or her efforts in the light of priorities expressed by children and young people. In Clause 6 the same framework allows local partnerships to focus on the priorities identified in local areas in consultation, of course, with children, young people and families for the provision of services and opportunities. I shall respond to the individual amendments in that context.
	Amendment No. 25, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, rightly underlines the importance of a nutritious diet in the lives of children, especially in the context of our concerns about rising levels of obesity among children. I should add to that our worries about the incidence of diabetes in children and young people, an issue which has been brought to my attention. The Government could not agree more on nutritional issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, observed, ensuring that the commissioner can look at dietary issues is an important part of physical health. They will also form an important consideration for partners in the co-operation duty when deciding how best to secure better health outcomes.
	I shall cite three basic examples. The first is the work of breakfast clubs in schools. They play an important role in providing a nutritious start to the day for children who might not otherwise have breakfast, thus enhancing the ability of children to enjoy their day and to learn, which is critical. Secondly, the school meals service is also an important player, ensuring that children have the opportunity to access a nutritious meal at lunchtime. Indeed, that meal is often the only hot meal provided in the course of the day. Whenever I visit schools I am interested to learn how many children have sat down to a meal because I would argue that part of a nutritious diet is being given the opportunity for social interaction. Many of our children are not able to eat a meal while talking with friends. Our schools are very effective in ensuring that our children are offered such opportunities.
	Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to the Sure Start programme. Issues of nutrition are addressed at minus nine months, if I may so describe it. The Sure Start programme works from the time of conception through to the age of around five. Much of that work centres on supporting families to ensure they provide a proper and appropriate diet.
	I agree completely with the sentiments underlying the amendment. Nutrition forms an integral part of the work that we will be doing. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance on this area.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 and 32, which are designed to ensure that we think about how to protect children from being exploited by advertising. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, talked about the advertising of food and the high salt and sugar content in some children's food products. We fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that advertising for children is appropriate. Noble Lords know that the Broadcast Advertising Code already regulates the content and timing of adverts aimed at children and Ofcom is now undertaking a major programme of work to examine the advertising regulations. We will continue to encourage industry initiatives such as Media Smart, which helps children deal with the complex messages of advertising in a critical way.
	It is important that children receive educational support in order to understand the whole world of advertising so that they can deal with it rather than being unable to reflect on its messages. We cannot hide those messages away from children. As noble Lords are aware, they reach our children from a wide variety of sources.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether the commissioner could become involved in some of the issues around advertising. The commissioner can be a consultee on anything; it is entirely for him or her to establish relationships. However, we are aware that this is an extremely important area and we are sure that the commissioner will want to address it. So we think that these issues are covered in the broad definition.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked specifically about the vulnerability of children to exploitation. We are clear that such vulnerability is implicit in the current list of outcomes that the duty to co-operate encompasses. We do not need to make it explicit on the face of the Bill. It is part of the work that will need to be done. However, we think that the broad definition of well-being embraces both of these areas: ensuring that children are healthy and safe, and that their financial well-being is protected. Noble Lords know that I will resist a list, and we believe that these areas are covered.
	The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, spoke to Amendment No. 90 which would place a particular focus under the definition of well-being on children living in poverty. I pay tribute to the work of Turning Point and the other organisations involved in this area. It is crucial to recognise the impact of poverty. As the noble Lord pointed out, we must focus not only on the issues surrounding financial poverty, but also on the other aspects that emanate from that such as poverty of aspiration in some of our families and children, poverty of physical and mental health, educational achievement and outcome, and so forth. The noble Lord is absolutely right to bring those issues to our attention.
	That is why I return to the Sure Start programme. Its work was launched first in our poorest areas, helping to support families living in poverty and enabling their children to have the best possible start in life by addressing many of the issues that have been raised. I am very proud of this Government's pledge to eradicate child poverty. We understand that it is a broader issue than that of finance, but nevertheless financial considerations play a huge part in poverty. However, I shall not accept the amendment because the outcomes as we have described them are designed to apply to all children, although I am aware that the work of those co-operating and collaborating through the children's service authorities, along with the work of the commissioner, should focus on children living in poverty so that those with the deepest problems are the first priority.
	Amendments Nos. 91 and 189 highlight the important issue of housing, outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. However, the same question arises as to whether housing should be specified as an outcome. The approach we have taken is to view housing as a function that agencies need to consider in carrying out their duties to co-operate. I can confirm that, under the co-operation arrangements, we expect housing decisions to be looked at in the context of well-being. Indeed, we have included district councils in subsection (3) of Clause 6 partly for that reason.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will not be surprised to hear that the Welsh Assembly also recognises the importance of housing in a child's life. The need to ensure that housing matters are included as a priority in the consideration of children's needs will be recognised in the preparation of guidance in Wales. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it is not necessary to specify housing on the face of the Bill, with the reassurance that this is part of the reason why district councils are there and, as I have described, a critical part of the issue of well-being.
	Amendment Nos. 26, 27, 87, 88, 187, 188 and 189 all relate to the issue of play and recreation. As before, there is no issue of substance between us here. Noble Lords have spoken with passion about the importance of play. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford talked about play as being important in itself, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, talked about the link between play and education. We have coined the phrase "learning through play" and there is a recognition of its importance. We know from the work of Sure Start that parents sometimes need help in understanding what is going on when children are playing and its importance and value to them. You cannot get it wrong when you play and that is something which children know only too well. Adults know it too, because sometimes we also play. You can try out, practise and, as a consequence, learn; very importantly, you can also have a good time—which is critical.
	We therefore agree that play is very important and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, it is critical in other areas of development. There has been a great deal of research—and this relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—about the value and importance of play and sport in enabling children to have a good time, to learn, to get more from their education, and all of the physical and physiological aspects involved. Also, its importance as a method of supporting some of our young people who might be in danger—partly through boredom and partly through lifestyle—of drifting into criminal activity. I know personally, from the work I did long before I entered your Lordships' House, that one can very effectively use activities to support children in that way.
	Every Child Matters: Next Steps restates the Government's commitment to embedding the five outcomes. The report states,
	"young people . . . need opportunities for personal development, learning and recreation outside school hours, including access to sport, art and cultural activities".
	There is a substantial amount of work under way in relation to play. We have a number of programmes in place, some of which I have mentioned, through the Children's Fund, and the Youth Service; I also refer to the work of Neighbourhood Renewal, the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme and point out that the voluntary sector makes a very important contribution to our work in this area.
	The Welsh Assembly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, is very committed to ensuring that, in each local area, young people can access opportunities for personal development, learning and recreation. The Assembly will be able to specify the play and recreation needs of children and young people in the guidance issued in Wales.
	As my noble friend Lord Pendry said, the work of our right honourable friend Mr Dobson in developing the play review—which I was pleased to work on as a Minister within the Department for Education—resulted in a number of recommendations regarding the importance of play, not just for younger children but also for older children and teenagers, for whom it is critically important to provide opportunities which, frankly speaking, do not include the pub. There is also the important matter of integrated play for children with disabilities and giving them the opportunity to play alongside other children. I pay tribute to Frank Dobson for that extremely good work. We are currently considering those recommendations across government.
	It will not surprise noble Lords that I will not accept the removal of the word "training" from the list of outcomes, for the reason that other noble Lords have stated. It is an important aspect of the opportunities for those young people who wish to have vocational skills—work-based opportunities which enable them to gain employment and financial security. I suspect that noble Lords did not intend that we should take that away from young people and I reassure my noble friend Lord Pendry that there is no intention to do so. We believe that we have covered it in the outcomes. It was never our intention not to cover it. It is part of well-being.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Does the Minister accept that what came through in the outcomes—which resulted from consultation with children—and was written into the Green Paper Every Child Matters involved "enjoying and achieving"? It is translated into "education and training". Would she accept that that is a good translation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: "Enjoying and achieving" is not translated into "education and training". "Achieving" is translated into "education and training"; "enjoying" was within "economic and social well-being".
	I was wondering when noble Lords would raise that point, because it was quite understandably raised at Second Reading. The translation, in terms of the legislative programme, is "economic and social well-being" and that is specifically intended to cover play, recreation and leisure activities.
	It is our intention not to take this away but to encompass it within that definition. In that context, I am very well aware of the number of noble Lords who have pressed this issue today.

Baroness Walmsley: Does the Minister agree that it is important that legislation is not obscure and that it is understandable to people? It has taken her several minutes to explain to noble Lords that translation of "enjoying" and where it appears in the Bill. How long would it take her to explain to the man, woman and child in the street?
	I believe that adding "play and recreation" and not taking out "training", as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has suggested, would add to the clarity of the Bill and the understanding of the Government's intention. I am sure that, in advancing this Bill, the Government would want their intentions understood.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not believe that it took me several minutes. I thought that I answered the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, rather quickly. I am also not entirely sure that the way to involve people in our activities is to ask them to read legislation. I recognise that parliamentary language is important and legal certainty is absolutely critical, but I hope that we will find other and better means to send the message out to children and their families in order that they understand exactly what is our intent. I am with the noble Baroness on that to a degree, but not entirely.
	I would say to my noble friend Lord Pendry that I came to your Lordships' House with the view that this was very much part of "economic and social well-being". As always, I have listened very carefully. Perhaps I may take this away once more and bring back on Report either more convincing and firmer considerations for not including it, or a recognition.
	My noble friend Lord Pendry asked me which organisations we had met. The good news is that I have met all of the organisations he listed during my time as Minister. I have not had any request to meet them at this stage. If that is what they wish, I would be more than delighted to do so. Officials have been meeting with them, however, not only within the Department for Education but also within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There has therefore been a great deal of dialogue. If, on the basis of what I have said, noble Lords agree to withdraw this group of amendments, we will come back.

Lord Elton: Before my noble friend withdraws and while the Minister is reflecting further, may I ask her to include in the reflection a dimension which I do not think has been raised in this debate so far? I apologise for unavoidably missing three minutes of the debate. I refer to the growing and acute importance of tempting children away from the television screen, so that they learn to socialise with other human beings and to use their own imaginations. That is more important than we give it credit for, and the commissioner may have it in mind. That may involve a definition of "play".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I would refer to computer screens as well as television screens in that regard, but I am also conscious of the interests of children and that the purpose of a good deal of the commissioner's work is to look at best interests and other interests; that goes back to a recent discussion in your Lordships' House.
	I am very nervous of getting into lists of what we want to do. The opportunities that children and young people have are critical. This was alluded to by a number of noble Lords, who pointed out that the opportunities we may have had as children are not so available to this generation of children. It is important to ensure that they have safe and appropriate places to play. I would not rule out the value that computers, technology or, indeed, television programmes can have in children's lives. It is, as ever, a question of balance.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am sure we all thank the Minister for what she has said on this wide-ranging group of vital issues. I should have said at the beginning of the debate that I support all the amendments in this group. The word "play" dominated a great deal of the discussion as did the importance of play, whether it stands alone or is part of a learning process.
	I was particularly struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said on the subject of teaching parents to teach children to play. We hope that it does not have to be that way for all parents; nevertheless, some guidance is crucial, particularly for those who perhaps did not play much when they were children. It comes back to the point that will come up again and again about the importance of parents; my noble friend Lord Northbourne will refer to it many times during the passage of the Bill.
	I think that we can take considerable comfort from what the Minister has said and the fact that she has agreed to take away these issues and think again before Report. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 2, line 8, leave out "and training" and insert ", play and recreation"

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 26, I should explain two things which I may not have made quite clear earlier. Other noble Lords have spoken, and I indicated before I spoke that I was quite happy to support the amendment that does not include the removal of training.
	Amendment No. 26 seeks to remove training because play and recreation are in some cases very organised and part of a training scheme for children. I was thinking of the work that youth clubs do: my husband is very involved in the Church Lads' and Church Girls' Brigade, for example. They have organised training as well as play activities, which I might not have explained as clearly as I should have. Scout and guide groups are also very involved in that context. The amendment seeks to highlight the more informal and loose activities that fall within "play and recreation". So I am more than happy to support the other amendments, as I hope I made clear.
	When the Minister considers these issues, could she have particular regard to disabled children, whose needs are that much more acute and difficult to include in the general way of things?
	Finally, I thank noble Lords who paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. She is indeed sorely missed. I was very thrilled that she launched Home-Start International, and very proud of Leicestershire, because Home-Start started in Leicestershire during my days working as a member of the county staff of the WRVS. Margaret Harrison was her inspiration; if she had realised that Home-Start would end up as an international organisation, she would have been quite surprised. I, too, should like to add my tribute.
	I am grateful to the Minister for what she said about the previous amendment. I obviously cannot speak on behalf of other noble Lords who tabled amendments on play and recreation, but, for my own part, I am very disappointed that the noble Baroness was not able to accept the proposal. However, I am reassured that she will think about this; it is so essential and has been supported so strongly around the House that it would be foolish not to do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I want the Committee to be absolutely clear about what I am taking away: I shall reconsider the issues to do with play and recreation. I of course accept that all the other issues are important, and I am always sorry if my response disappoints anyone in your Lordships' House. Perhaps we can discuss these matters further in correspondence. However, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not even thinking of bringing back anything on the other issues.

Baroness Byford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) In exercising his function under this section, the Children's Commissioner must have due regard to—
	(a) the need, where opportunities for disabled children are not as good as those for other children, to promote equality of opportunity between disabled children and other children by improving opportunities for disabled children; and
	(b) the need to promote equality of opportunity between—
	(i) children of different racial groups, religions or beliefs, family status or sexual orientation; and
	(ii) between boys and girls generally."

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: The purpose of these amendments, which have been suggested by the Disability Rights Commission and supported by the NUT, among many other organisations, is to place a positive statutory duty on the English Children's Commissioner to promote equality of opportunity and report in his or her annual report on steps taken to achieve this. Similar amendments are tabled to Clauses 6 and 7 and to Clauses 20 and 22, which will be debated later.
	What is proposed is something very similar to the duties placed on the Learning and Skills Council at its inception. Without such a positive core duty to tackle the systemic barriers and ingrained discrimination encountered by disabled and other excluded children, the Children's Commissioner may make very little real impact.
	A positive duty to have due regard to the promotion of equality in carrying out the commissioner's functions would have several implications. It would mean, of course, that the commissioner's staff would need to receive comprehensive training in equality and diversity issues. It would help to ensure that the interests of particularly marginalised groups of children receive due weight in the policy and advocacy work of the commissioner.
	Work on child poverty—a vital group, as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Adebowale—would need to emphasise early intervention and, in addition, address areas of disproportionate disadvantage—for example, the fact that 61 per cent of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children live in the most acute poverty or the fact that it costs three times as much to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child. Work on mental health services would need to address the disproportionate risk of mental health problems among looked-after children, and so on.
	At present, the Bill certainly deals with the need to reach out effectively to groups of children who find it hard to make their voices heard, but it should also ensure that the commissioner then goes on to prioritise the barriers such children face when promoting children's interests to government and service providers. As the NUT stressed, there is a pressing need for teachers to have their skills developed to meet the diverse needs of children with SEN.
	The English Children's Commissioner may of course be subject to duties to promote racial equality under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and there are plans to legislate for a public sector duty to promote disability equality. However, my amendment proposes a broader equality duty which covers many more grounds of discrimination and exclusion, including religion, belief, family status and gender. Without such a broad and inclusive duty, it is hard to see how the commissioner can focus effectively on issues of multiple discrimination, and some children will inevitably become marginalised.
	We have many positive examples of the benefit of such explicit duties on public bodies. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 imposed just such a duty on the Learning and Skills Council, and the Disability Rights Commission testifies that this has made a vast difference to the effectiveness of its work on equality. Similarly, research into the impact of the race equality duty on public authorities demonstrates major benefits in terms of cultural change. It has been found that such duties are highly valued by public authorities for the way that they have improved policy making and service delivery design. Even with gender equality, there is still much to be done. As the EOC's annual report 2002–03 pointed out, 83 per cent of employees under 25 in science, engineering and ICT are men and 91 per cent of under 25 year-olds working in healthcare, childcare and personal services are women. Unsurprisingly, there is a pay gap attached of some 19 per cent.
	The Children's Commissioner could and should play an important part, again, as the NUT said, in seeing that gender analysis is mainstreamed and built into policies, planning and thinking at school and LEA level as well as elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will give these amendments a sympathetic response. They are very much in harmony with the positive equality duties set out in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Government's avowed commitment to an inclusive society. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for introducing her amendment which I support in principle. I suspect that it may be too wordy for the Minister, but it is an important amendment. I look forward to hearing the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which particularly relate to looked-after children and young people in custody. I will respond to those amendments after I have heard him speak.
	I rise to speak to Amendment No. 33 in this group, which relates to the whole question of disabled children and young people, some of whom were at a meeting yesterday, at which they were adamant that they wished to be called young people as well, rather than just children. It is true that the Children's Commissioner will have regard to the needs of all children and that will include disabled children. However, this Bill will, one hopes, become the guide not only for all organisations and individuals who have regular contact with children, but for those whose contact is rather more tangential. In that group, I include people who design and maintain buildings, roads and other public places.
	At Second Reading, the Minister opened proceedings with a well structured presentation, in the course of which she drew attention to the commissioner's role in influencing,
	"at a strategic level the opportunities available to children and young people".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1209.]
	In that context, we feel that specific reference should be made to disabled children in the Bill. The Disability Rights Commission and Mencap have raised this issue with us. The latter stated that it was concerned that the new aspects of wellbeing introduced in the Bill miss important elements contained in the original outcomes set out in Every Child Matters.
	Both organisations are rightly concerned that disabled children should be included. In the Government's own publication, the needs of disabled children are clearly spelled out. The foreword in, Removing Barriers to Achievement, the Government's strategy for SEN, clearly states:
	"Removing Barriers to Achievement sets out the Government's vision for giving children with special educational needs and disabilities the opportunity to succeed. Building on the proposals for the reform of children's services in Every Child Matters, it sets a new agenda for improvement and action at national and local level. All children, wherever they are educated, need to be able to learn, play and develop alongside each other within their local community of schools".
	In the debate on the previous amendment, I asked the Minister to have particular regard for the needs of disabled children. I have in mind another group of children who, in their way, are disabled themselves, but have duties and responsibilities to other people who are disabled, who may be siblings or older members of their own family. I understand that a recent children's programme on Radio 4 highlighted ways in which these children—in cases of the slow onset of illness in a parent or another child—cope magnificently with their added duties and responsibilities. This particular group of children may be overlooked under certain circumstances, if only because they are often isolated. Schools and local social groups to which they might belong may not be aware of their family commitments.
	The Disability Rights Commission has lobbied us, along with many other organisations and I am grateful for its detailed lines on why it is so important that we have close regard for the needs of disabled children and young people in the Bill. We do not often have such a Bill coming through the House, so we must not miss this opportunity.
	I would also like to share with noble Lords that last night I attended a meeting with the Children Group here in the House, at which a presentation was made by Triangle. The group considered the implications of the Children Bill on this particular interest group. One important thing came out of that meeting: the group hoped that the Minister and the Government would take on board the great need to hear what disabled children and young people want for themselves. An example was highlighted of the difficulty of trying to make all of us who take speech and hearing for granted understand that people who cannot speak still understand and want to get their views across. That was a hugely important aspect and I was very moved. I was sorry that there were not more people from the parliamentary side there to listen to what the group said. The group was also very concerned to safeguard the interests of disabled children and young people, and we shall deal with that later on in the Bill. The most important issue that was raised was that the voices of disabled children and young people should be heard.
	It is government policy that children and young people with disabilities should be treated in the same way as all children—I do not want to say normal children because children with disabilities are normal children who have different requirements. I am particularly thinking of school and local community activities. The group last night said very clearly that, although many children wanted to attend and could cope in ordinary schools, for some that is not possible because their needs are so great that they cannot compete and take part in normal community life. The group wanted to make it clear that the needs of such young people are special. They said that it was all very well the Government saying that we should treat all children alike: they are not all alike, which is why I am labouring the point today. The Minister is nodding and accepts that point. It is hugely important.
	The meeting last night was very impressive and it was appropriate that it was held just before today's debate. Therefore, I move this amendment on two fronts. I move it on behalf of all disabled children, some of whom can cope in the normal accepted sense, and those who have additional needs. Those needs should be met and should be clearly spelled out in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will not respond by saying that their needs will be covered elsewhere, because it is so important that they are included in the Bill. This very simple amendment would specify that the Children's Commissioner is concerned with disabled children and young people and that they will not be lost in the wider aspects of wellbeing currently laid down in the Bill.

Lord Rix: Mencap was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. As President of the Royal Mencap Society, I must not only add its enthusiastic support for Amendments Nos. 30 and 33, I must also express my personal support for them. This is not just because I am president, but because I am the grandfather of a little lad with Down's syndrome who is aged three.
	The amendment, which refers to "opportunities for disabled children", must apply to him. He, fortunately, has parents who know their way around the disability field a little because of their background. However, there are thousands of other parents who do not know their way around the complicated area of equality for disabled children. I would love to see Amendments Nos. 30 and 33—or something of a similar nature—on the face of the Bill, to make clear to all people responsible for opportunities for disabled children and learning-disabled children that they have a statutory duty to perform their best endeavours in this regard. Therefore, I heartily support both these amendments.

Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Listowel speaks to his group of amendments, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain that his amendments cover in principle the area that my Amendments Nos. 100 and 110 cover. Mine relate to Part 2 of the Bill, his to Part 1. I think it would be better if we discussed mine in the second part, so I am disaggregating them, and leaving him free.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his helpful intervention. I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 34, 42 and 44. Before doing so, perhaps I may also say how strongly I support the amendments of both previous speakers.
	The first amendment, Amendment No. 34, is to include,
	"in particular children looked after by a local authority and children and young people who have been so looked after".
	My purpose is to obtain an assurance from the Minister, first, that particular attention will be paid to this group of children and, secondly, that she will at least consider that children who have left care and are over the age of 18 can be included on the face of the Bill in terms of the duties of the Children's Commissioner.
	A significant number of children in care under the age of 18 experience disability. I believe there are about 10,000 children with disabilities who are in residential settings run by local authorities. About 40 per cent of the general care population have an emotional disorder—that is, an enduring emotional problem which impedes their ability to enjoy normal life, although that is not always identified.
	The Government have made important steps in improving the quality of life for these children. In the Adoption and Children Bill they introduced a duty to provide independent advocacy on local authorities. Yet the Government will acknowledge that there is still a long way to go to ensure that the voices of these children are properly heard. Therefore I hope that the Minister will look very favourably on finding some way to incorporate the drift of this amendment into the Bill.
	I give an example of a care leaver, a young man who left care and entered prison. He was then moved into inappropriate accommodation in Earls Court and had taken up drug use. He needed to gain the support of a mental health worker and an advocate in order to obtain better housing in a more appropriate and supportive setting. That is just one example of the issues that affect care leavers and need to be dealt with.
	It would also be helpful to hear how the Commissioner for Children will work with Roger Morgan—the Children's Rights Officer at the Commission for Social Care Inspection—who has a special brief for these particular children. Obviously the Children's Commissioner may have significantly more powers than this Children's Rights Officer. How can we best ensure that these two officers work in the interests of these children, and all children?
	I would like to divide Amendment No. 42 into two sections—42A and 42B—for ease of reference. The first part of this amendment is:
	"For the purpose of this section 'children' includes young people in custody".
	The purpose is again to obtain an assurance that the Minister will at least consider this group among the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner. Approximately 40 per cent of this group have been in care—are care leavers. We know that only 10 per cent of children in care have had an involvement with the criminal justice system before being involved in the care system, but over 50 per cent have experienced sexual abuse or neglect. We know the origins of a significant number of these children. They have often been very badly let down by their parents, and then—I regret to say—badly let down by the systems that should have supported them.
	I am not thinking only about the care system. However, if one does look at the care system—and I have no wish to bore your Lordships by repeating these facts—until recently, 80 per cent of the staff working in children's homes with the most vulnerable children had no relevant qualification to do such work. I salute the Government for the steps they are taking to improve this situation. The introduction of non-vocational qualification level 3 in child care is not yet achieved for all the staff in this group, but they are working towards the bulk of them achieving it.
	However, if we compare what we do here with the Continent—if we look at Germany or Denmark—by far the majority of their staff have three years' specialist training in a high-level qualification to work with these children. This is just one example of how we have failed to intervene to support these children, who very often come from dysfunctional families, and have not provided the support to those families and children that would have diverted them from the prison experience.
	We recognised in the Children (Leaving Care) Act that children who have this sort of poor experience in early life may take additional time to reach maturity. Therefore there are certain provisions in that Act permitting children to be looked after by local authorities until the age of 21—and, in certain circumstances, until the age of 25. So it is quite appropriate that we should consider extending the law in this particular area to children under 21 in young offender institutions.
	The second part of the amendment reads:
	"For the purpose of this section 'children' includes those young people for whom a local authority has duties under the Children (Leaving Care) Act".
	I understand that currently the commissioner will have no possibility of considering the needs of these children because his remit relates to children under the age of 18. In other parts of this Bill—the next part for instance—there is the possibility of considering these children's needs. However, in this part they are excluded. Why is that the case?
	The outcomes of this group are, for example, teenage pregnancies—these women are two-and-a-half times more likely to become pregnant in their teenage years. A quarter of the prison population comes from this group. They are more likely to become involved in drugs. I have spoken long enough on this issue.
	I look forward to some assurance that the Minister will at least consider the matter during the Committee stage, and report on how we might make the commissioner's role more important in this area. Indeed, how can his role add value to the role of Roger Morgan, and Roger Morgan's role add value to the work of the Children's Commissioner? I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Walmsley: I support Amendment No. 30, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, to which I enthusiastically added my name. According to the Explanatory Notes and the Green Paper, the role of the commissioner will be to seek and represent the views of children and young people on how far the five outcomes that they identified as important are being achieved. The list of the five outcomes, as provided for in the Bill, unfortunately does not appear to include an explicit equality of opportunities concern. That is why we have tabled this amendment from three sets of Benches in this Chamber.
	It is hoped that the commissioner will have a role in ensuring that services focus on addressing inequalities across social class, ethnicity, gender and special needs as well as disability. In addition, it is hoped that he or she will address issues such as how children's services can better combat all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying. In any selection process, how will the credibility of candidates for the post of commissioner be tested in relation to their knowledge, understanding and experience of the needs of children and young people from minority groups and those with disabilities, and so on?
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to each of the minority groups. I shall add briefly to that. In February, the Secretary of State launched Removing Barriers to Achievement, a new long-term strategy to transform the education of children with SEN. The strategy proposes six very important principles. The NUT has briefed us on the amendment, which it enthusiastically supports. The union believes that in order to improve educational and wider outcomes for all children with SEN, the Government must in addition restore funding for continuing professional development on SEN, which provides opportunities to develop and enhance both generic and specialist skills. Will the Minister say something about the Government's commitment to that? The NUT is also anxious to know whether the Minister can assure the House that awareness of disability discrimination duties is, or will be, included in the standards for qualified teacher status and in any standards set for staff across all services.
	It is also important that the commissioner is able to tackle the bullying of young people in schools or anywhere else. That issue is very much in the news at the moment. We very much welcome the Government's focus on reducing bullying in schools, but we were disappointed that the Green Paper did not spell out why a child may be bullied. Very often it is because the child is in some way different. The child may be from a minority group, or may simply be perceived by children to be different. It is vital that initiatives to tackle bullying in schools explicitly promote anti-discrimination on any of these grounds. Of course, staying safe is one of the goals set out for every child, so there should be more publicity given to statistics about racial harassment and homophobic bullying, to focus attention on the threat posed to the safety and well-being of young people by that sort of activity.
	The Government's increased recognition that services need to focus on addressing inequalities across ethnicity is also very welcome. However, will the Minister ensure that those involved in the provision of children's services have the knowledge and skills necessary for them to support the needs of minority ethnic pupils?
	Provision for minority languages is very important. International research shows that the maintenance of first-language proficiency has a beneficial impact on learning a second language. We know that when children have learnt a second language it is very much easier for them to learn a third and a fourth language. Equally, high-quality translation services are often vital for effective communication. How will the commissioner's office be resourced with respect to minority languages—including Welsh, of course?
	Every Child Matters made no reference to the needs of Traveller pupils, which is the group most at risk in the education system. Although some make a reasonably promising start in primary school—and many schools make enormous efforts to encourage Traveller pupils to attend regularly—by the time they reach secondary level their generally low attainment is a matter of serious concern. Access to schooling is also a particular issue for Traveller pupils.
	In the report, Raising the attainment of minority ethnic pupils, Ofsted found that a majority of Traveller children were on the SEN register. I am quite sure that that is not because of their intellectual capacity but because they have fallen behind in their schooling. In one primary school, 74 per cent of Traveller children were on the register; in one secondary school the figure was as high as 80 per cent. Alarmingly, in half the schools in the Ofsted study, no Traveller student had yet even sat for a GCSE. It is very important that the commissioner is able to focus on promoting equality of opportunity for those children, too.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, the commissioner must as part of his role take gender equality into account. There needs to be further exploration by Government and the commissioner, when he or she is appointed, in partnership with the representatives of those responsible for frontline delivery of children's services on the links between gender, subject, training and work choices and occupational segregation, the pay gaps to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred, and the skill gaps. If every child truly is to matter equally, gender equality must not be forgotten or sidelined in the agenda to improve children's services. I look forward to the Minister accepting some amendment to the Bill to put equality of opportunity right there at the heart of the commissioner's objectives.

Lord Laming: I have no doubt about the very best intentions behind the amendments in this group. However, the discussions that have taken place in this Chamber raise a number of great concerns for me. I would be grateful if the Minister would address those concerns.
	One great strength of the Bill is that it seeks to address the well-being of all children and young people. That is a great strength that we must not put at risk. The more we attempt to specify a list of needs, the more we run the danger of excluding people, because the list will never be comprehensive. I take this part of the Bill to be one that deals with the general responsibilities of the commissioner to promote the well-being of all children and young people. With that in mind, I would hope that the commissioner would give particular attention to those children and young people with the greatest needs. Members of the Committee have already referred to some of those needs.
	Will the Minister address what I believe to be a real problem? If we begin to specify, we either go for a comprehensive list, which I believe to be impossible bearing in mind the variety of need and the social situation of children and young people in our society—or, if we decide that we cannot be comprehensive, as I suspect that we cannot, there is a danger that we will emphasise the needs of one group of children above those of others.

The Earl of Listowel: I recognise the importance of what my noble friend Lord Laming said. I point out briefly that the two groups of children that I mentioned—the care leavers and the young offenders in institutions—would be excluded from the commissioner's role. I underline that.

Baroness Stern: I support the thrust of the amendments and, to my great sorrow, disagree profoundly with my noble friend Lord Laming. I should like to make a comment about what is in the Bill and the law and its meaning. The law does not just set out the law, it also gives messages about our values and about who is in and who is out, who has been thought about and who has not.
	I think that we would all agree, either from personal knowledge or from being generally well informed, that the parents of disabled children face intolerable hurdles in getting what they need. Their lives are very difficult and a constant struggle. For them to see their situation mentioned in the Bill would be an important recognition by us that we understand and appreciate what they are doing and what their lives are like.
	Without spelling it out, the same applies to children in care—looked-after children. They know that in many ways they are at the bottom of the heap. Perhaps what is even more important, the people who look after them know that their status is low and that they are not valued. It is important that we think about the meaning of the law to people who work in those services. They face many difficult situations in their work and it is sometimes hard for them to decide what is the right thing to do.
	Members of the Committee who have had the time to read the coroner's verdict in the inquest on Joseph Scholes, which was issued on 30 April, will understand how public servants are sometimes placed in intolerable situations. Some of us remember the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—the death of Gareth Mayatt. Similarly, that involved people placed in a very difficult position. In my view, staff working in such situations need the clear and unambiguous support of the law in words that everyone can understand when they have to decide what is the right thing to do.
	I would very much support thought being given to Amendment No. 42, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, because it could help the Government to rectify their unfortunate drafting in response to the Joint Committee on the Rights of the Child, when they said that children who commit crimes are not just children.

Lord Chan: Briefly, I identify with Amendment No. 30, especially concerning equality of opportunity for children belonging to racial groups and religious beliefs. Nine out of 10 ethnic minority children and families live in England, which makes it different from the other territories.
	I ask the Minister to what extent the consultation of 2,000 children included representation from black and other ethnic minority children. I do not assume that all of them are at risk of exclusion, but there are definite, well known and well researched racial groups of children who have difficulty with our society and system. For example, one would be children whose parents are first-generation migrants, do not speak English and want to rear their children according to customs developed elsewhere. That immediately brings the children into conflict between the culture that they learn in school and society here and that of their parents. Therefore, groups such as Bangladeshi and Pakistani children need to be identified for those purposes, as well as because they are in poverty and tend to live in segregated communities.
	There is also the issue of black Caribbean boys, who continue to form a significant proportion of children excluded from school—a third, at least. Is there any way that the children's commissioner could have some oversight over such groups that are at risk of social exclusion? I know that racial incidents have been recorded, at least in schools on Merseyside, during the past three years, and that there is a cross-boundary consultation every month with voluntary bodies as well as all the statutory bodies in local government.

Baroness Thornton: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I thought that I ought to weigh in in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said. When discussing issues of enormous emotional attachment for noble Lords, the House often find itself saying, "All is all", and then starting to define all the different specialist interest groups that may be contained within "all". Indeed, during our discussion on Tuesday, we discussed whether "all" meant all children and generally agreed that it did.
	There are three reasons why it is then important not to start qualifying "all". One is because, further down the road, when the Bill is on the statute book and people are using it, we are then in danger of excluding people who are not included in the list. That is a serious problem. The Government may not be the one that introduced the Bill or be particularly sympathetic to some of the groups. So it is important to leave "all" meaning "all" and not qualify it. Secondly, many of the groups that have been mentioned have their own legislation—which is quite right. Examples are disabled children and care leavers. We have discussed that legislation on many occasions and will rightly continue to do so.
	Thirdly, I expect the commissioner to involve all of us in a large discussion about what his or her priorities should be and to which groups he or she should pay particular attention—whether they be ethnic minority under-achieving boys, disabled children, children who are living in extreme poverty or Travellers' children. We should not try to define the job of the commissioner in the Bill.

Lord Northbourne: I support those who share the concern of my noble friend Lord Laming about selecting particular sub-groups for special attention. His suggestion almost in passing that if one has in any way to define how the commissioner should select his priorities, words such as "the groups of children in the greatest need" would leave him to make the judgment. I could quite easily add half a dozen categories to those that have already been mentioned this afternoon, as, I am sure, could other Members of the Committee.

Lord Elton: I see that danger. Indeed, I am told that Laming's law is expressed in Latin as expressio unius est exclusio alterius—if one is in, it implies that the rest are not; and the more you have in, the stronger you imply it. However, I think that we must exempt the two amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, from that because the definition of a child is to be found in Clause 49(1), as it applies to this part of the Bill, as being under 18. Amendment No. 42 specifically refers to children as being under the age of 21 if they are in custody. So that does not breach that principle.
	Slightly less respectable, but still passable, is his Amendment No. 34, because it is saved by the words, "in particular". The doubtful ground is whether we avoid the difficulty of saying that all does not mean all but particular people if we say that all means all but that the commissioner should be especially careful of these people.
	There may be a blanket term with special regard to those in special need, which could be general. I warm to the cautions of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because I have come across this difficulty so often in legislation. It is very good for us to air in debate on probing amendments the critical areas to which the commissioner should pay attention. We flatter ourselves that he or she will read every word of every stage of this Bill when he or she is appointed, which, of course, they will not. However, one hopes that an academic will do the job for us and draw these specific points to their notice.

Lord Hylton: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in venturing to oppose my noble friend Lord Laming despite his enormous experience and knowledge in these fields. My noble friend Lord Listowel responded very effectively in about one sentence by pointing out where his amendments would go beyond the existing text of the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Listowel, all of whose amendments in this group I support, might have mentioned one extra thing which has not yet been said today; namely, that we are faced with a national shortage of good foster parents which leads to all too frequent breakdown in foster placements with very bad consequences for the children concerned.
	I also support this group of amendments from the point of view of penal affairs and crime prevention. I invite the Minister when she replies to say whether in her opinion the change of name or terminology from "children in care" to "children looked after" made any real difference at all. Was it a purely cosmetic change, I wonder?
	Will the Minister go a little further when replying to inform the Committee about what has been the real effect of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which I think has now been in force for at least three years, or a period of about that length? Is it beginning to produce results? Have studies been conducted into improvements resulting from that Act?
	More generally, I support the amendments that we are discussing from a penal affairs point of view. We know, and have known for a good many years, that a far too high proportion of those coming within the scope of the criminal justice system have previously been in care or looked after. I suggest that greater investment, for example, in foster parents and in improving the training and qualifications of care workers would yield—I hope that the Treasury will take this point on board—savings in criminal justice and in penal custody. I hope that I have made that point sufficiently strongly and that we shall get a really good and effective reply on these amendments from the noble Baroness.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I shall try to speak briefly. I am sure that we shall return to the issues of disability and discrimination when we discuss Amendment No. 94. I am slightly concerned that the term "racial groups" has been used in the amendment rather than the broader term "ethnic groups" to reflect the mosaic constitution of our current society. However, I wish to concentrate on Amendment No. 42 which I consider is terribly important.
	I am very concerned about children in custody, particularly in Wales. This is exactly the situation that could result in a child in custody having no one directly to turn to. I remind the Committee of the twin boys in Hillside to whom I referred earlier in Committee when child B's needs fall under the England/UK children's commissioner.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded us how difficult it is for a disturbed youngster to pick up the telephone to make contact for help. If there is any doubt whatever that the person answering is completely trustworthy and will act on behalf of the child, the child will not attempt to make contact. If the child cannot contact the commissioner, the whole purpose of the role is lost.
	There have been suicides in custody. That shows how despairing some of the youngsters in care can become. You have to ask why they got there. How is it that they are in care? It is because they have been failed previously. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, highlighted, the care system lets them down—sometimes at every step of the way.
	Until there was a Children's Commissioner for Wales, there was nothing. Since being in post, the Children's Commissioner for Wales has established open lines of communication with custody services. That is not as good as his formal powers but it is better than nothing. Now it is proposed that the England/UK commissioner will be at arm's length. That arrangement is perceived by young people in Wales as distancing them from their current champion.
	I would love the important obligations, as outlined in the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to be part of the functions of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. But if that cannot be done, they really must be considered on a UK-basis. I completely understand the reason for avoiding a list, but children in custody are in a very different situation. They have to be viewed as a core duty of someone who has responsibility for the children who have ended up in custody because at every other step of the way they have probably been let down. They may have disabilities or learning disabilities.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I shall speak very briefly. I am totally committed to young people in custody. There are issues concerning age here. I am extraordinarily committed to disabled young people. I am president of John Grooms Association for Disabled People. As the Minister knows from a conversation that I had with her earlier in the week, I also care passionately about the children of asylum seekers.
	However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Laming and with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that lists are exclusive, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, rather than inclusive, and that "all" must mean all. My great anxiety is that restriction might be placed on the commissioner in the form of direction from the Secretary of State. I should like the Minister to assure us that all these groups of children can be accessed by the commissioner when issues need to be raised. Like the Government, I believe that the commissioner should be looking at strategic issues but should have to listen to children regarding those strategic issues.
	I place on record my wish that all these children should have the right to access the commissioner, even if they do not individually reach him—with 11 million children that is difficult. The commissioner must work with other people and in particular with the children's rights director of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, Roger Morgan, who I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned. If we place such a great emphasis—I have mentioned this before—on the commissioner and do not pay attention to those people who must work with him or her in the interests of children, we lose the benefit of teamwork. That goes right through local authorities, schools and all the other institutions that work, I hope, for the benefit of children. I hope that they will be led and encouraged by a very strong commissioner for children.

Baroness Walmsley: While heeding the warnings on the dangers of lists from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I hope that noble Lords will not dismiss Amendment No. 30 on the basis that it has a list in it. The heart of Amendment No. 30 is the need for the commissioner to promote equality of opportunity. That is what it seeks to address. Later on, we will be moving the need for the commissioner to report on the actions that have taken place to promote equality of opportunity. That is what is at the heart of Amendment No. 30 and, in order to illustrate what is meant, that amendment does mention a list. However, the point of that amendment is equality of opportunity.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an interesting and important debate in our deliberations about the role of the commissioner. I want to begin by making it absolutely clear that the word "all" means "all". The commissioner's job is to listen to, and to find ways of talking to, all children; that is, with all of the children that noble Lords have mentioned and with many children that noble Lords have not mentioned.
	The second point, in terms of framing the debate, is that, by talking about everything that the commissioner will do, we are investing a huge amount in that individual and his office just from this one debate. We should not fail to recognise that many of the responsibilities that noble Lords have described, for example, about bullying or the role of different agencies, rest with those agencies and with the Government. It is important that we do not forget that the Government rightly bear a huge responsibility for many of the issues that have been raised and for which they should be held to account—something which noble Lords strive to do. It is against that backdrop that I shall make my remarks in response to the amendments that have been tabled.
	I shall address, first, the amendments that relate to the Children's Commissioner. I have already indicated that it is critical that all children and young people are heard, especially, as noble Lords have indicated, those who often do not get the opportunity to be listened to. I was not able to be at the meeting last night that was attended by the noble Lady, Baroness Byford, and was very interested in what she said. However, I have had the privilege in my other life, as it were, and in my ministerial life, of meeting people from many agencies and discussing with them the ways in which they are creatively able to involve children who do not communicate in the traditional sense, as we understand it.
	Some fantastic work is being done, not least by Mencap and others, about understanding how to make sure that children's views are listened to, heard and understood by others. That will be a critical part of the work that we do with the commissioner; but, beyond the commissioner, it will be critical in the work done overall by the Government, by local government, and by others in making sure that we recognise that need. I encompass within that the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about minority languages and other aspects of communication skills, which are both critical and important.
	We shall be looking at all of those issues in the appointment of the commissioner and will make sure that we find ways to involve the representation of all children in the process in one way or another. We shall take advice from those who have great experience of such matters. I accept the importance of this: the commissioner is the champion for all children. However, the nature of that remit means that the commissioner will focus on our most vulnerable children and young people because they are the ones who are least likely to have the outcomes that children have identified as being critical. Clause 2(5) requires that, in carrying out this function, the commissioner must have particular regard to those who do not have "adequate means" to make their voices heard; namely, many of those groups mentioned by noble Lords today.
	Amendments Nos. 34 and 44 were spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. As noble Lords will know, they are about making sure that the views and interests of children and young people who are, or have been, looked after are taken into account. Of course, by themselves these amendments would not include care leavers aged 18 or more. Amendment No. 42 raises the issue of whether such care leavers should be covered in this part of the Bill. I shall return to that shortly. I am grateful to the noble Earl for once again reminding us of the particular vulnerability of children who are, or have been, looked after by local authorities. Noble Lords made the connection between those who are looked after and the potential for their lives to be, at best, in disarray and, at worst, to lead them to prison, or worse. We are very aware of that. For far too long, as noble Lords have heard me say before, these children and young people have experienced poorer outcomes in many of the areas recorded in the Bill.
	The vast majority of children who are in care are there because their parents cannot or will not look after them. They are not in care because they have "done" anything. It is because they have not had, for one reason or another, the kind of supportive, loving environments that would enable them to thrive. With the Quality Protects programme we have attempted to improve services for those children. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to what has happened after the Children (Leaving Care) Act. We are very pleased with the positive outcomes but, rather than take the Committee's time now, I shall write to him more fully on the impact, which is very positive and with which we are pleased. There is a long way to go, but we are pleased. I shall put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House in order to ensure that I have covered that point effectively.
	I agree with my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who I am pleased to see back from his trip to China, which I trust was successful. I am very nervous about putting lists in this legislation. That is not to say that I do not accept the value and importance of these groups of children and the passion with which noble Lords have talked of them. I share their sentiments. However, I am very conscious of what lists do. Lists either mean that people focus on the list and not on the rest, as noble Lords have indicated, or they produce silo services. As the Minister responsible for children with special needs and disabilities, I feel that, in the process of identifying them, we sometimes put children in a corner. We identify them in a way that says that they have certain needs and we do not see that for many children there is a progression of need that is often a gradual slope. Our objective is to get to the bottom of the slope and to identify those needs without always feeling a need to put a label on an individual group to identify it. Unless we think of our institutions, such as schools and children's services, as having a responsibility as regards all children and to identify the needs of all children, that is the risk that we take.
	My view as a Minister has been that it is the responsibility of all services to look at children with special needs and disabilities, not just services designed for children with special needs and disabilities. That is where I draw my line and I want to ensure that this legislation reflects that aim. So there will be a Children's Commissioner for all children. All of the groups identified by noble Lords are critical, but there are others that have not been identified. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, talked about young carers. We have discussed this many times in the Chamber. The average age for a young carer is about 11. There are also the siblings of children who are very ill and children who are bereaved. I met representatives of the Bereaved Children's Trust recently and children who are bereaved are a particular group with additional problems. There are also children who are witnesses or victims of domestic violence. We know that there are many children who, for a variety of reasons, do not get the kind of outcomes that children and young people themselves have identified as important and we are enshrining that in this legislation. I agree with the sentiment 100 per cent but that means that I believe that the best way of doing this is to identify all children. We are in conversation with the Disability Rights Commission and the Council for Disabled Children, which I meet regularly, in order to ensure that we recognise the need to include those children in all our work.

Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have looked at the wording in the Bill and it might be a help to all noble Lords if the word "all" were in it. It is not. It just says "children". I wonder whether that is something that the Minister might consider. I shall come back on the other matters at a later stage.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that we debated the question of "all" on Tuesday and we are looking at it. As noble Lords know, when the Bill says "children" it means "all children" but we have taken that away, as noble Lords will remember. I agree with that.
	I have already mentioned the fact that, as Minister for special needs and disability within the department, I take a particular view of ensuring that all services reflect that aim. Indeed, Removing Barriers to Achievement—our document which, in a sense, sets out the next step—is a critical part of it. Inclusion for children is not about the setting: it is about the experience; it is about what happens to children. That is why it is absolutely critical, both in education and in every other service that we provide for them, that children should be included in the broadest sense, whether it be in play and recreation, services provided by other statutory bodies or voluntary organisations. Again, that covers all children.
	Although I could, I will not go on at length about the strategy. It is designed to deliver the improvements that we all wish. I mention it partly because developing such a strategy is the Government's role. Although that should certainly involve the commissioner, I do not want our responsibilities in any way to be shuffled off to the commissioner and the commissioner's office. This is about everyone playing their part. The commissioner exercises the strategic overview role by ensuring that the system works. The commissioner is the voice of children and, as I said on Tuesday, gets his power from children. Disabled children are part of the remit under Clause 2(5) because of the particular need to make their views known. I therefore hope that those amendments will not be pressed.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, reminded us, Amendment No. 30 is about the need to promote equality of opportunity for disabled children and refers also to issues of race, religion and belief. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, rightly raised issues of cultural understanding that concern some of our ethnic minority children. Perhaps I may offer one small anecdote concerning the understanding of some of our most recently arrived families about such matters as the education system. I came across one family who believed that children went into the French system when they were moved up an academic year. As children were not moved up in the educational system in the part of Africa from which they came, and because of language difficulties, they were not aware that their child was falling steadily and substantially behind. They quite properly assumed that children were not moved up unless those educational standards had already been reached. This small anecdote demonstrates the critical need to understand some of the cultural issues and the desire of all parents to do the best by their children. Work on the issue is under way, as I have previously mentioned in your Lordships' House.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, also raised issues concerning Afro-Caribbean boys such as exclusions and the fact that, although they do comparatively reasonably well at key stage 2, we begin to see difficulties at key stage 3. That is a critical part of the work done by my colleague Stephen Twigg and of our strategy to focus work particularly on the secondary schools with the highest number of Afro-Caribbean boys. We are working closely with colleagues in Ofsted to learn and understand those issues. Again, I completely accept that that is our responsibility and that we need to take it seriously.
	I wholeheartedly affirm our commitment to equality of opportunity. That includes looking at the outcomes for boys and girls, an issue previously raised in your Lordships' House. This is about outcomes for all children. The commissioner will determine his priorities based on what he hears from children. As I say, that is intended to focus the commissioner very firmly on listening to children. I believe that that is the way to approach it. I do not think that it is necessary to write that on the face of the Bill.
	Returning to Amendment No. 42, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that I have the good fortune, through the all-party group, to be in discussion with the Children's Rights Director about work with the commissioner. I believe that Roger Morgan is very keen to ensure that the relationship works. I think that it will be a very dynamic one. It is critical that the commissioner works closely with the Children's Rights Director and other colleagues. I think it will be a particularly important and special relationship.
	I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the noble Earl, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and others including the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about young offender issues. As regards the Bill, we regard those over 18 who are in custody as adults. We believe that some of the issues the noble Earl raised need to be addressed through the work the Government do with the services for those young people. We will be discussing issues such as training and the work being done more fully in later amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We have to be very clear about the commissioner's role and about the children and young people with whom the commissioner is working. Perhaps I may be so bold as to say that we should not expand and extend that role on the assumption that that is a solution. Some critical issues regarding these young people need to be taken up, but I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate place to do that.
	Amendment No. 42 deals with the position of care leavers over 18. We have considered that issue in the Bill. As young adults, care leavers are in receipt of specific services arising directly from their experiences as children, which is the point that the noble Earl makes. The co-operation duty in Clause 6 covers arrangements that relate to them. It also covers young people with learning difficulties who are in a comparable position in service provision. We took a different approach because the commissioner's functions do not lend themselves so easily to extension beyond 18 as they are about the views and interests of children rather than specific services. None the less, I am ready to consider how we can positively and constructively address that issue and ensure that the noble Earl's concerns about care leavers are met.
	With that reassurance, and in the hope that I have addressed most of the concerns raised in this group of amendments, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not to press their amendments in the group.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her helpful and full response. I am very gladdened to hear that she will look at the situation of care leavers over the age of 18. I thank too all noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendment. Perhaps I may make it clear that I am in no way critical of those who provide care to these young people. They do an outstanding job in the circumstances. It is simply that they have not been adequately equipped to do the job that is needed.
	Perhaps I may also make one quick point about the prison system and young offenders. Anne Owers addressed a recent meeting sponsored by the Howard League for Penal Reform and pointed out how greatly 18 to 20 year-olds had benefited from the changes. Since 16 and 17 year-olds had been in the same institutions, the culture had begun to change as people became more sensitive to the immaturity of the elder group of children; they were old in years but young in development. Although she applauded the fact that children were being taken out of these settings, that had worked to the detriment of the 18 to 20 year-olds. The commissioner might have a very useful role in such strategic thinking.
	Those young people are cared for by prison officers who have had only nine weeks of training. The Chief Inspector of Prisons toured the Continent and said that practice in this country is at the bottom range of that on the Continent. The practice in Germany far exceeds ours. Two years of training are required in order to work in such settings in Norway. The commissioner could play a crucial role in such strategic issues. I am grateful to all who have spoken and for the Minister's helpful response, but I may return to the issue at the next stage.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: There has been a great deal of passion and real feeling about these issues and we must thank the Minister for her comments. However, I have to make one comment. Although I back the equal opportunities point which is the basis of our amendment, and although I have considerable sympathy with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and not least with his phrasing that greatest attention should be paid to those in greatest need, I must remind your Lordships that, based on past experience, we will achieve change through legislation such as the Race Relations Acts and—from my own experience—the equal opportunities legislation which sets out that people should be treated equally. With one lot of change you get a leap-frogging effect as far as the others are concerned.
	So we will think again with that in mind. We may or may not raise some of these issues again at a later stage. For now, however, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes to three.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as there has been a revised list of speakers for the Unstarred Question, Back-Bench speeches should now be limited to six, rather than eight, minutes.

Nuclear Power

Lord Tombs: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear power option open, in accordance with declared government policy.
	My Lords, there is a tacit recognition by Government that we may need to maintain the nuclear option in order to meet our commitments on climate change. Others, including me, while convinced that nuclear power will be essential for that purpose, regard the security of future energy supplies as even more pressing and the proposed reliance on imported gas as imprudent. But, whatever their protestations, the Government have come perilously close to closing the nuclear option. That has occurred through a combination of disjointed government policy decisions and unvoiced procrastination, both of which continue today.
	We have enjoyed the benefits of civil nuclear power in this country for almost 50 years, during which time nuclear stations have generated almost 2,000 terrawatt hours of electricity, so avoiding the emission of around 2 billion tonnes of CO2, if that electricity had been generated from coal. That is roughly four times our annual CO2 emissions. The safety record of the industry has been impeccable. The events at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have not been replicated here, for which we must be grateful to the designers, constructors, operators and safety regulators.
	In spite of those achievements, the industry is becalmed in a fog of government indecision, in contrast to the situation abroad. British Energy was saddled with impositions which can only be described as perverse, including local rates much higher than that for any other form of electricity, high fuel reprocessing costs and climate change levy—for an industry which generates no CO2. As though that were not enough to hamstring the company there came the introduction by DTI and Ofgem of the new trading arrangements, NETA, which produced a reduction in the wholesale price of electricity of 40 per cent. The effect of those disconnected impositions was to bring about the financial collapse of British Energy; and the report by the National Audit Office well illustrates the casual approach of DTI in that unhappy development.
	The financial problems of British Energy are sometimes used by opponents of nuclear power to suggest that the industry is uneconomic. No form of generation could be operated profitably under such a regime. We are left with an industry of which we should be proud, which has been "rescued" from a government-created crisis and which is now effectively operating on a care and maintenance basis at a time when its contribution to the country's future prosperity and security has never been so sorely needed.
	The privatisation of electricity supply removed any sense of strategy from the fragmented industry; and that responsibility now lies uneasily between Ofgem, with its devotion to short-term pricing, and a mixture of departments which includes DTI, Defra, ODPM and the Treasury—a combination which is rich in advisory committees and short on action. DTI nominally occupies the lead role but patently fails to exercise it. This simply will not do. Secure energy supply, particularly electricity, lies at the heart of the country's economic life and requires a better informed and more purposeful approach.
	But let us turn from the present situation to the practicalities of, to quote the Government's hope, "preserving the nuclear option". The first need is to see that future investment in generating plant is enabled through the market. At present this is not the case, with the notable exception of wind power, where a complex system of subsidies has been introduced to induce investment which would not otherwise take place. Here, vast numbers of wind generators are to be constructed offshore, with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions to meet our international commitments and ambitions. In his helpful response to my question in the House yesterday, the Minister indicated that the Government estimate of the total extra cost to electricity consumers by 2020 will be around £30 billion. That represents more than twice the total construction costs of around 10 gigawatts of modern nuclear power stations, with the advantage of continuous supply and sufficient to replace our present ageing nuclear stations. I suspect that many people would be disappointed and dissatisfied with a choice made on their behalf to place all the chips on wind rather than nuclear power.
	The tariff structure has to be changed to attract future investment, perhaps by reverting to the earlier practice of basing tariffs on long-run, not short-run, marginal costs. But even success in this field would require a declared strategy, perhaps based on government consents to construction or other means. The industry is now so fragmented that all strategic matters find their way to inter-departmental government committees with their inevitable discontinuity of transient Ministers and civil servants and their patent lack of technical knowledge. The electricity consumer and the country deserve a better fate. This is a highly complex industry, not a table-top game for politicians and economists.
	Some serious thought has to be given by Government and Opposition to this decision vacuum and an unquestioning reliance on market forces, which will not suffice, as is evidenced by the present government interventions. The Government could try to get their act together by reverting to an energy department, providing leadership and, it is to be hoped, coherence. I hope that they will do that. By such means, the idiosyncrasies of multiple Ministers and departments could be subordinated to a well considered strategy and would restore a welcome accountability.
	The question of nuclear waste disposal has been the subject of determined procrastination by the Government for more than five years since a Select Committee inquiry, of which I had the honour to be chairman, reported. Since then other, more determined countries have proceeded vigorously and it is time that we followed suit. The problems are well understood and soluble; all that is needed is government action. It should be noted that a programme to replace our present nuclear capacity would increase the waste disposal volume by only 10 per cent over half a century of operation and would not affect the need for action today on a present problem which has to be tackled. To delay decisions on new nuclear capacity because of the waste disposal issue is irrational.
	An important matter which is critical to any new nuclear programme is that of licensing, where safety is quite properly the dominant concern. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has an enviable record in that field and has served the nation well, but it suffers, as does the rest of the industry, from a shortage of skilled and experienced manpower which would delay implementation of a new programme. There is an urgent need to strengthen the NII's capabilities in order to start work on the presently competing modern reactors—the Westinghouse APR1000, the General Electric simplified boiling water reactor and the Canadian Advanced CANDU, the last of which bears a strong resemblance to the SGHWR adopted by this country in the late 1970s and abandoned when the Government changed.
	The United States Department of Energy has encouraged the formation of two consortia to develop the designs and safety cases of those reactors, with active support from the administration. We should watch this development closely and seek to take part, if only as observers. We must constantly bear in mind that through the BNFL acquisition of Westinghouse we occupy an important and potentially valuable position in the nuclear field and should seek to strengthen that in every possible way.
	I have tried in this brief introduction to be objective and constructive in my examination of this important subject and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to reply in a similar vein. The practicalities of maintaining the nuclear option rest with government. There is a pressing need to establish a competence and leadership in energy matters within government and nowhere is this more urgent than in the nuclear field. Without determined action the nuclear option will steadily weaken. That would be a disastrous outcome to which the Government seem indifferent but which the nation cannot afford.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for giving us another opportunity to talk about this matter. As always, he has made an extremely strong case. As this is a short debate, I shall be even briefer than I intended. I gather that there is not a new list; the Government have simply revised their arithmetic on how much time each speaker has. It is treating the House rather shabbily to allocate each speaker six minutes instead of eight.
	Yesterday at Question Time I was struck by the following remark of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury:
	"I am beginning to realise what fun I have missed by not taking part in the Energy Bill".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. 1101.]
	I am not sure that "fun" was the right word, but we certainly regretted not having a DTI Minister on that DTI Bill.
	I seek to make only two points in this short debate. A solution to the long-term waste problem must be at least in sight before embarking on new nuclear build. The Government's chosen advisers in this field, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), was originally scheduled to report in 2005. However, I was startled to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, say on Report that,
	"the committee is due to report in 2006".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col. 418.]
	I tabled a Question for Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was then in charge of the Bill, asking:
	"Why it is expected that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will not now report until 2006, when it had previously been announced that the Committee would report before the end of 2005".
	The noble Lord replied:
	"CoRWM is scheduled to deliver its work programme proposals by the end of March 2004".—[Official Report, 31/3/04; col. WA 173.]
	I then wrote to the noble Lord to ask what was the problem. I have not yet received a reply. I rang his private office this morning to ask when I would get a reply. My letter was dated 6 April, today is 6 May, and I have still not had a reply. I find that rather shabby treatment. This morning I asked the Library to search the web again. Shortly after 11.30 a.m. I got a response: in CoRWM's 36-page Programme of Work 2004–2006, at page 11 the final schedule states that the fifth key output is "reporting and closure", and that the target date for the final output of "recommendations to Ministers" is 2006. That will have been nearly 10 years since the failure of the NIREX planning application in 1997. I share the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. It simply is not good enough. Far too much time has been wasted in shilly-shallying.
	Perhaps there is hope that it need not go as far as that. This morning there arrived on my desk the Nuclear Industry Association newsletter Industry Link, which states:
	"With waste being seen as one of the primary obstacles to new nuclear build, CoRWM's recommendations could profoundly influence the future of the industry. Time is of the essence".
	It further states that CoRWM,
	"want to extend the completion date from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006, but if the Government refuses, they will have to revise their strategy".
	I must ask the Minister: are Ministers really going to accept yet a further year's delay? When will the decision on that be announced?
	My second point relates to the nuclear option. A week or two ago we had the annual report on the energy White Paper. On Report, in discussing a new clause, we referred to, among other things, the need to report on what was being done to keep the nuclear option open to avoid dependence on foreign skills and technology. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"My Lords, in the Sustainable Energy Act there is a requirement for an annual report which should cover everything raised in the Energy White Paper . . . That includes . . . keeping the nuclear option open. Therefore, we are already required to detail most of the issues—in practice, probably all the issues—included in the prescription".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col 408.]
	By "prescription", he meant in the amendment. So what do we see in the White Paper? Absolutely nothing new. The paragraph in the annual report more or less repeats word for word what was in the White Paper. There has been no progress and no details. It is as if no steps were taken in 2003–04 to discharge that White Paper commitment.
	I am being driven to conclude that, so long as the present Secretaries of State of the DTI and Defra remain in office, nothing will be done. They are not prepared to do or say anything that could presage new nuclear build. That is what we are up against. I find this a matter of profound anxiety.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, by stressing the fact that it is a duty of government strategically to plan certain facilities, such as ports, water supply, energy and airports. At last they have come off the fence on airports; however, nothing is happening in the other areas, which are all extremely long-term industries. I am afraid that the cycle of doing things is right outside the electoral cycle and completely outside the five-yearly pricing reviews, if indeed they last five years, of industry regulators. Courageous government action is needed. It is amazing that a government with a majority the size of this one's shy away from taking tough decisions.
	There is considerable doubt about renewables, and concern about the investment subsidies needed to support them. There is also doubt about the net benefit in CO2 reduction from certain renewables, apart from wind farms, such as biomass. How definite are the Government about the security of our energy supplies anyway? How secure is the base load? It seems that we are getting increasingly nearer the margin. Before long, we will go over that margin, and there will be only one body at fault—Her Majesty's Government.
	Sweden, which has eschewed nuclear power, has also faced up to the problem of decommissioning. I believe that it has not decommissioned anything because there is no secure substitute but nuclear power. How dependent are we on imported gas from inherently unstable regimes? Before long, terrorists of one sort or another will blow up supplies on which we are basing our future. How much is being done about fuel economy and combined heat and power? Precious little, judging from the answers that we get in this House. So far as concerns our nuclear capability, I am anxious to know how we can staff it, whether designs are available for which the Government have any preference or whether they are so far away from making a decision that they have not even made up their mind on that. How long would it take from deciding to go ahead to actually commissioning a new nuclear power station? I assume that new nuclear power stations can be built adjacent to existing stations, so at least we do not have to go on to a greenfield site and face all the resulting problems.
	Like both previous speakers, we are extremely concerned about nuclear waste disposal. The decision seems to be ever postponed, when others are getting on and taking it. I shall be very brief, because the Minister owes the House a proper reply and plenty of time in which to give it. We need a strategy. It is absolutely dishonest to say that the French will build nuclear power stations and we shall rely on them, because it is not an issue that a government can shuffle off on to anybody else; they must make decisions themselves. I repeat that the matter must be taken beyond the electoral cycle. I seek some sort of cross-party consensus on how we should go ahead.

Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, what has to be done to keep a particular technical specialist capability alive is a matter of experience and judgment. I suppose, almost inevitably, the relevant experience and judgment is not to be found within government, and must be looked for elsewhere. I suppose it is therefore subject to claims that it may represent vested interests. For what it is worth, I am neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear. I believe passionately that the nuclear option must be kept open, because the problems that may have to be tackled by keeping it open are so important to us.
	Looking at the state of the nuclear industry today, and the effort that goes into research, I see no chance of the nuclear option genuinely staying open. There is very little opportunity even to remain an intelligent customer for other people's technology, if that is what is at the back of the Government's mind. One must retain that capability at the very least, and there really is no sign that we can do it. The reason is that capability depends on people, and if one looks round the nuclear industry today—with the greatest respect to those in it—one cannot avoid the very clear impression that technical capability is very long in the tooth. As an academic discipline in this country, nuclear engineering is virtually dead. The fact that it is not totally dead is due to the support given to particular university departments by BNFL. But it is a close thing.
	To build an academic department that can start a research programme and producing students will take five to seven years, even if one imports talent from outside. It will be 10 years before the first students can emerge from it. This is all part of what is needed to keep the nuclear option open. If we look at expenditure on research relevant to the nuclear industry in this country, it is a minute fraction of one per cent of that spent in other countries that run nuclear reactors. It is incredibly low. I do not see how the Government can conceivably justify this.
	I hope that the Government have taken note of, and will pay attention to, the extremely careful report that was produced—admittedly with the support of BNFL—by an independent committee of experts with irreproachable credentials. That committee, which I think published its widely available report nine months ago, looked at what was necessary to keep a nuclear capability open. It said that, at a minimum, we needed an expenditure of around £20 million a year, about half of which could come from existing resources. So they were talking about an additional £10 million a year. That is not a large sum in the light of this country's current expenditure on research and development. I would put it to the Minister that if we seriously wish to keep this option open, rather than paying lip service, we must make at least that contribution from public funds to keep the research effort at that level.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for raising this issue in an Unstarred Question for at least three reasons. First, he brings to this House enormous experience and expertise. Secondly, he gives those of us who have been seriously worried about the ambivalent view of this Government, and indeed other governments, towards nuclear power an opportunity to smoke out—or try to prise open with a pin—the Government's true feeling, if not policy, about nuclear power. Thirdly, by speaking on the Floor of this House, instead of in Grand Committee, more of our colleagues will be alerted to the apparent lack of urgency displayed about the future supply of electricity generation capacity in this country.
	Linked to this last point, it is becoming apparent to me that the Grand Committee process is greatly diminishing the knowledge base of many of our fellow peers. People do not attend Grand Committee meetings, the proceedings do not appear on the monitors, and although the speeches in the debates on the amendments are recorded in Hansard, they are tucked away at the back of the Official Report, and I doubt that readership is high. I fear that we are in danger of reducing the effectiveness of the House by this process. This is not a debate in which to raise this issue, but where else can we do so?
	Now that I have eroded yet more of the time we have, I will make a short yet, I hope, cogent speech on the subject of this debate.
	Keeping the nuclear power option open is essential if we are not to have blackouts, brownouts or power "outages" in the not too distant future. An over-reliance on imported electricity is fraught with political, economic and logistical danger. The Government's reluctance to be brave—and I use that word advisedly—in not talking openly about the prospects for new nuclear power facilities has very damaging effects. Why would bright young scientists, physicists or engineers opt for a career in a nuclear power industry which has such minimal and half-hearted support from Government and, indeed, lacks endorsement or appreciation by Government? I am utterly convinced that we shall have to proceed with new nuclear build in the longer term. Where will we have the skills to effect that programme?
	The Government have made the decision to support the retention and retraining of a core of nuclear experts, but quite frankly this is pathetic. A sum of a miserly £5 million has been set aside over four years. If my mathematics is correct, that amounts to 0.0000001 per cent of GDP, in order to "safeguard our future electricity supply". Even if I am a couple of noughts adrift—and I do not think that I am—it would be utterly hilarious if it were not so serious. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said in Grand Committee that,
	"my honourable friend in the other place is aware of the representations that have been made about this figure, and he is looking at it again".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. GC 379.]
	May I ask the Minister if his honourable friend has looked at it again, and if he has come to the conclusion that it should be multiplied many, many times?
	We are currently one of the major players in the world in the nuclear industry. We have built up a huge expertise, and it is being utilised overseas. If we let this level of knowledge and experience fall off, we shall lose our place at the international table. Other countries are powering forward with plans of a practical nature. I ask the Minister, where is the UK in all of this? And, as a supplementary, does he really care?
	Does any politician care? The nuclear industry is one with an unusually long lead time where, even if decisions were taken this year to build and commission a new generation plant, the commencement of commercial operations would probably not take place until the tenure of the fourth or fifth government from now. Herein lies a problem, and it is not one to which we are unaccustomed; namely, the short-term attitude of governments, and their inability to look much beyond the next general election. This is where this House scores, and where we should continue to do so.
	In the course of a debate in Grand Committee on the Energy Bill, the Government boasted about the UK's participation in research though the European Union's framework programme for research and development:
	"UK participations totalled 266 and these received 21.6 million euros".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. GC 380.]
	Not exactly a huge sum. That boast will not stand up when the lights go out.
	There is a most important point that seems to be disregarded by the Government, and it would be very practical to rectify this problem; namely, that nuclear is a renewable method of producing electricity. We could and would easily meet our emission targets if there were an increase in electricity generated by nuclear power. Conversely, if we allow our current nuclear capacity to close down without replacement, we shall never meet any of the emission targets.
	I was one of the 2.8 million viewers of the BBC2 drama-documentary, "If . . . the lights go out", broadcast on 10 March. That programme cannot be shrugged off as scaremongering; UK audiences are more intelligent than that. It served a useful purpose in highlighting the problems. The website asked viewers whether Britain should keep nuclear power, and 76 per cent said, "Yes". That means that another practical measure would be to undertake a knowledge and information exercise to inform the country of the benefits of nuclear power. Safety has increased immeasurably, and, in other countries, that is recognised. It would be a practical measure to ensure that it is recognised here.
	It has been an interesting but brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, stressed the importance of confidence and leadership. I would add joined-up government to that list. The noble Lord has done a great service in bringing the matter before the House. I thank him.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, as has already been said, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for asking what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear option open. We debate against the background of the fact that nuclear energy now supplies 23 per cent of UK electricity. However, in 20 years' time, all but one—Sizewell B—will close. It will contribute only 2 per cent of UK electricity, so it is proper to ask how that gap is to be filled.
	The Question does not ask us to discuss what other measures might be introduced but to consider what could be the future role for nuclear energy. If the nuclear option is effectively to be kept open, several steps must be taken. There are four that I consider to be of prime importance.
	The first is a reduction in the capital cost of nuclear reactors. At present, a nuclear reactor produces electricity at two to three times the cost of a gas-fired station. As the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, a good deal of work is going on new nuclear reactors. How soon can they be operational and reliable? I have been in the business long enough to remember the example of Dungeness B in the 1970s. It was an AGR reactor and encountered substantial delays and a massive cost overrun. If new nuclear reactors are to be introduced, we must be satisfied that they are reliable.
	The second issue is radioactive waste management, to which the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. It is sad to reflect that the Select Committee on nuclear waste, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, reported in 1999 on a perfectly feasible solution—deep geological depositories—but, now five years later, we are still debating the issue. The committee on radioactive waste management may not report until the end of 2006. Noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred with great concern to that delay. It is an issue of prime importance, and things should be speeded up. Until it is resolved, we cannot keep the option open for nuclear power.
	Thirdly, there is security. A new dimension to security is terrorism. How secure are existing and new stations likely to be? Obviously, details cannot be revealed. None the less, the public must be reassured that there will not be serious risk. I would like to hear what the Minister can say about that.
	The fourth point has been referred to by several noble Lords: the preservation of the nuclear skills base. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, indicated the extent to which there had been a reduction in the number of people being trained in nuclear skills. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, also referred to it. It is of vital importance, if the option is to be kept option, that the skills should be maintained. Those skills will be required, in particular, in advice on the licensing of new designs for nuclear reactors.
	I conclude by indicating that the aim of these and other measures must be to gain acceptance by the market and the public of new nuclear power construction. That can be achieved only by having the choice of reliable, lower-cost nuclear stations with a high level of safety and lower waste production.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for asking the Question. I agree with the whole thrust of his contribution. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue, but it is a matter of great import.
	First, however, I must say that, immediately before the debate, the Government Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, announced a 25 per cent reduction in speaking time. I do not think that noble Lords are best pleased. Furthermore, the speakers' list, which was issued by the Government Whips' Office, was not in the Peers' Lobby at seven minutes to eleven o'clock. The Government Whips' Office and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, might like to have a look at that.
	My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding talked about the delays in the management of nuclear waste, as did many other noble Lords. I agree with everything that he said. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, started by identifying the general lack of progress on strategic issues and said, "Nothing happens". It is no wonder that there is increasing disillusionment among the electorate. Unusually, the noble Lord said nothing that I took issue with. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, claimed to be neutral, but he wants to keep the nuclear option genuinely open. He talked about the increasing weaknesses in the knowledge of nuclear science and engineering and warned that we might not even be able to be an intelligent customer for new build. He also talked about funding for research and quoted some figures. However, those figures are negligible, compared with the expenditure on current decommissioning.
	My noble friend Lady O'Cathain mentioned, en passant, the difficulties with Grand Committee procedure. I am not a fan of that procedure either. My noble friend also made important points about the UK's nuclear science base and said that the Government would have to be brave. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about the need for courageous action. There seems to be a common theme.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made an interesting and valuable contribution. He talked about construction and programme risks. He is right. That is why new nuclear power must be placed on a strictly commercial basis, with all the decommissioning costs provided for. The role of government is to provide the right environment. Noble Lords are not convinced that the Government are doing that.
	We need not make a decision on the matter today or even this year. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is asking for one. However, many noble Lords have identified the lack of security for future energy supplies. There is also the problem of emissions. The public will not accept new build until the problem of nuclear waste is resolved. Many outside the Chamber portray the nuclear waste issue as an insoluble problem. There are two sources of waste: first, there is legacy waste and the waste from current nuclear operations; and, secondly, there is future waste arising from new build, if there should be any. But, of course, we know that that is only 10 per cent of our existing waste liabilities.
	I do not think that the public are worried about nuclear safety, which was a point touched on by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. The evidence of safety is too compelling. Yes, there have been disasters, but we know what caused them and there does not seem to be a problem. However, new build would not be acceptable by the public unless they can be absolutely convinced that there is a robust solution to the waste problem.
	Unfortunately, most of the public have not read the report on the management of nuclear waste by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The anti-nuclear lobby is aware of that and they take full advantage of it. The Government have set up CoRWN to examine all the options, which was told, on no account, to report before the end of 2005. The committee has already excelled itself. I understand that it does not intend to report back before 2006, which was a point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to "determined procrastination" on the part of the Government.
	I have only one question for the Minister. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this question several times, but I have never received an answer. Perhaps the Minister, as Minister with responsibility for science, may be better placed to answer the question, which I am sure that he has anticipated. What disposal option for nuclear waste is remotely viable other than a deep geological depository? I should be very interested to hear his answer.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Two subjects have been covered, which need to be kept slightly separate. The first question is whether we should consider nuclear as part of the future plans for energy. The position of the Government is clear. We think that nuclear may well play a large part, for many of the reasons given in this House during the debate, including environmental issues and security of supply. But that is one issue, and that is why we believe that we must keep our option open.
	The second question, which is the subject of this debate, is the actions that we should or should not take in the light of that. So I shall address the nature of the debate, which is to keep the nuclear option open. There is no disagreement on the other issue. However, I think that some noble Lords have the idea that there is a simple, cheap source of nuclear energy at hand, which, if only the Government would seize this opportunity, would solve our problems. That is not based on factual evidence. There is not an easy solution. If there were, the generators would be coming forward with proposals or pushing for proposals, but we are not seeing that at the moment.
	Perhaps I may turn to what I think is the question in this debate; namely, whether or not we are keeping the option open as we very clearly said we would in the White Paper. By way of background, it is not right to say that this is mired in indecision. Very clear decisions were made in the White Paper about our priorities. That was set out. It may not be that everyone agrees, but those decisions were quite clear.
	I now turn to the question of keeping the nuclear option open. The White Paper includes a commitment to quicker, more effective planning inquiries for major energy infrastructure projects, a commitment to the introduction of the European Emission Trading Scheme and measures to secure nuclear skills for the future. Those measures will ensure that we have the necessary pool of skills and expertise, if it becomes the right decision to have new build in the future, and should make the commissioning process easier.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, asked what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear option open. There are two key measures, which are skills and research initiatives aimed at ensuring that the UK maintains sufficient expertise to address the possible future challenge of new nuclear build. The White Paper also describes the government initiatives to address the issue of management of legacy nuclear waste, which impacts strongly on the public perception of nuclear power.
	As I think we have said on a number of occasions in this House, we have put measures in place to support and develop nuclear skills. The Cogent Sector Skills Council was licensed on 2 March 2004. It will take a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet the nuclear employers' current and future needs.
	Cogent also represents the chemical manufacturing and oil and gas sectors and there are many synergies with the nuclear sector. It will operate through a mix of the Sector Skills Development Agency and industry funding. There are mechanisms in place to ensure that Cogent fulfils its role of meeting the skills needs of the industry.
	The Nuclear Skills Group report and the prospect of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have already spurred other skills initiatives funded by a number of authorities and with which Cogent have been engaged. Examples include the North West Development Agency, which is funding a nuclear skills project to support the siting of the NDA in the north-west. There is an initiative from Manchester University—UMIST—to forge collaboration amongst higher education institutes to deliver nuclear education and research. Energy Foresight is working to develop educational material and teacher training aids. The University of the Highlands and Islands and UKAEA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the French Nuclear Energy Agency and the University of Grenoble to collaborate on nuclear skills issues.
	As regards research, new opportunities for fission research have been announced as part of the research council's "Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy" initiative. As has been said already, £5 million is being made available over four years. I agree that that is a small sum of money in this context, but this is where, in the new spending review, we will have to look at the extent to which we can start ramping up this amount of money.
	In doing that, the research councils consulted broadly in developing the programme. That included Defra, the DTI, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, NNC, UKAEA, Rolls-Royce, the MoD, Nirex and BNFL. The scope covers research under three key themes, which are the maintenance of current generation capacity, fission as a part of a sustainable energy economy and future fission power.
	This also needs to be seen in the context of the new UK Energy Research Centre, which is currently being established. It is to be hoped that it will provide leadership in energy research and assist in giving coherence to the UK energy research agenda. It will have responsibility for establishing and co-ordinating a network across the broad spectrum of the energy research community of environmental, engineering, economic and social scientists. It will act as the hub of the National Energy Research Network, which will link to other centres of excellence, research institutes and so forth, and also offer a focus for wider international engagement.
	Fission is seen by most people as a well developed applied technology. Any new nuclear power stations built in the shorter term are likely to deploy existing reactor designs. The UK currently keeps in touch with developments in reactor technology through industry involvement in international collaborations like the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and international initiatives, including EURATOM, IAEA and the Generation IV International Forum.
	Noble Lords will recall that the Generation IV International Forum aims to develop a framework for collaborative R&D on Generation IV reactor systems that could be deployed from around 2030. The initiative will allow nuclear technology and regulatory experience to be shared internationally and contribute to safer, more proliferation resistant, sustainable and economic future nuclear systems. The UK has played an active role in its development, without commitment to building a Generation IV design in the UK. There will be opportunities for UK participation through EURATOM. DTI funding for wider participation remains to be decided in the next government spending round.
	However, I take very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. He addressed the key decision of whether we have the resources to be intelligent customers in this. Other than more money to be spent on research, he did not specify what that would consist of, but if he will write to me setting out where he believes there are gaps that would prevent us from being intelligent customers and which we need to fill, I shall be happy to look at that along with the committee of Sir David King, which is considering the subject.
	I turn briefly to some of the points made by noble Lords. I shall repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I do not think that there is a problem about the organisation of government. A clear responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry on this issue. I strongly disagree with the noble Lord in that I do not think that we can dismiss the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste simply as something that can be dealt with in the future. It needs to be tackled as a part of moving forward in this area.
	It should also be said that there is no point in having experts come to conclusions on this matter unless we can reach consensus among a reasonable proportion of the population that the direction in which we are moving is right. That is why we have to take time with CoRWM to take the right decisions and reach consensus there.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about security of supply. We do not disagree that we have to look at nuclear energy as a part of the strategy. However, people are grossly over-exaggerating the dangers surrounding our future gas supplies. Of course there are issues of terrorism, but that is why we are diversifying our supply base.
	I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the idea that the lights are suddenly going to go out. There may be issues about planning, but we are talking about the long-term situation which will unfold as nuclear generation declines. Whatever people may say, we have some time available in order to take decisions. The lights are not going to go out during the next couple of years simply because we have not yet taken the decision on nuclear energy.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, knows well that, at this time, there is no alternative to deep geological deposits for high-level nuclear waste, although a range of options is available for the disposal of low-level waste. The primary issue is more the question of where such action is taken. However, I believe that a whole range of other options is being looked at to see whether they present any further opportunities.
	The Government continue to believe that the ambitious programme on renewables and energy efficiency is achievable. However, what is clear within energy policy is that it is very difficult to predict the future, in particular where the three objectives of security of supply, cost and the environment must be met. It is not easy to predict the best combination of those factors for the future. Therefore we have stated clearly that we will consider new nuclear build as one of the options for the future.
	I hope that, in the short time we have had to debate these matters, I have illustrated the fact that we have taken action to make it possible to keep the nuclear option open as we move into the period where we will start to close down nuclear power stations. We cannot predict the future exactly, but the steps the Government are taking form a sensible response in order to reverse the situation we had when we came to power, which was one where the whole area of nuclear research had been closed down. We have been turning that around so that if a decision on new nuclear build comes through, we shall be able to seize that opportunity.
	As I have said, while we cannot predict the future exactly, we are confident that our plans are fit for purpose, although we shall continue to keep them under review so that we continue to be able to exercise the option.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, can the Minister answer the very specific question I put to him? When will the Government announce their decision on the timetable which has been put to Ministers by CoRWM?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have stated the timing of their response. I shall go back and examine the position, and write to the noble Lord.

Business of the House: Adjournment

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in the invidious position of having to move an adjournment of the House because we are not due to start our next business until ten minutes to three o'clock. I am aware of the fact that there has been some error in my office with regard to the timing of the speeches in this debate. I have not had time to investigate the matter, but I will look into it. However, if a mistake has been made and noble Lords have been misled about the length of time they had for their speeches, I shall certainly see that it is examined closely to ensure that it does not happen again.
	Noble Lords will recognise that the Whips' Office provides a service to the whole House. It is rare for us to make a mistake of this kind, but it looks as though one has been made here. I shall repeat the apologies which preceded the debate and, I repeat, will ensure that it does not happen again. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for mentioning this point during the course of his remarks.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I think that the Minister ought to be made aware that the speakers' list is frequently late.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there may be reasons for that. I shall look into the position closely, but on this occasion not only was the list late, but the information provided was not accurate. That has caused everyone some considerable inconvenience. Nevertheless, given the cogency with which views were expressed in the debate, I do not think that its quality was lessened in any way, shape or form. However, I regret the errors that have been made.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, if the noble Lord is making inquiries in the Whips' Office, it would be immensely helpful if he could look into another matter. When I came down to the Peers' Entrance five minutes before we were due to start Question Time, the amendment groupings list was not ready because it was still being run off the press in the Whips' Office. If the Minister is going to look into the matter raised by my noble friend, I should be grateful if he could also examine my point. Noble Lords taking part in consideration of the Children Bill had to go back upstairs to make sure that the sequence in which amendments were to be taken had not been changed. However, some had been altered.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that point is at least as serious as the first matter I addressed. I shall certainly undertake to look into it. Once again, I apologise to the House. If noble Lords will forgive me, I feel obliged to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.50 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 2.47 to 2.50 p.m.]

Children Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 2.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients."

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to move Amendment No. 31 and to speak to Amendment No. 45, which is included in this group of amendments.
	The wording of Amendment No. 31 refers to all children, and we have already had several debates on the matter. The Children's Commissioner must be required to have a robust policy on accessible information. We are concerned that it should include, for example, a website which fully complies with the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines and which has been rigorously user-tested by children, including disabled children. For example, children with visual impairments, learning difficulties, and physical impairment should be involved in the testing. A recent formal investigation by the Disability Rights Commission into web access, covered by Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act, revealed that 80 per cent of public websites are impossible for disabled people to use. It is therefore vitally important that any new website set up by the commissioner for the use of children should not fall down in that way.
	It should also provide for information in the full range of accessible formats, such as large print, audio, Braille, disk, easy-read, pictorial format, and VSL video—for disabled children. These should be available at the same time as the original print version. It will not be good enough to produce them several weeks or months later.
	It is also important that information in all formats in the community languages is produced, to prevent exclusion of children from black and ethnic minority communities and those brought up with Welsh or Gaelic as their first language.
	It is also important that information takes into account the different ages and levels of understanding of children. I am reminded of an exercise I was made to do during my teacher training, in which I was given a number of paragraphs from different newspapers to analyse, according to a formula that detected what was the average reading age of somebody who would be able to understand fully the meaning of such a paragraph.
	Having gone through school and university and then had teacher training, and having on the whole mixed with people from the same sort of background, it was a great surprise to me to realise that, when teaching children, I would have to use a more restricted vocabulary, a much simpler sentence structure without a lot of subordinate clauses, and to be very careful about contorted sentence structure. It is therefore vitally important that the adults who produce such websites follow the example of organisations such as the NSPCC—in which I express an interest—which involve children in the production of their websites. We must make quite sure that it is understandable to the age of children at whom it is targeted.
	The commissioner would also need to ensure that appropriate communication and other support are available to children participating in consultation events with the commissioner, including independent advocacy where that is needed. It may be necessary to make particular arrangements for access for disabled children; perhaps for signers; for Braille, for notes that are passed round; and possibly even for interpreters. It is very important that all those things are taken into account, and I hope that Amendment No. 31 would make that quite clear on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 45 is supported by Liberty. It is quite difficult to speak about it here because it is a consequence of Amendment Nos. 50 and 51, should they be passed by the Committee. Those amendments would place the responsibility for drawing up and disseminating guidance about information-sharing with the Children's Commissioner. The commissioner would discharge this responsibility in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner.
	The Children's Commissioner would be best placed to make judgments about the balance between the need for privacy and child protection, not least because his or her first interest is the well-being of children. The commissioner would also have the power to review and update guidance, and thereby ensure that best practice was upheld.
	Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 give this power to the commissioner. Amendment No. 45 requires the commissioner to report annually on information sharing. There is an argument that the commissioner should report on information sharing anyway, as it is so critical to the well-being of children. I therefore hope that this group of amendments will be accepted by the Government.
	I also support Amendment Nos. 47, 48 and 49 in this group to which I have attached my name. They are tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. However, I will not steal his thunder by saying any more, except that he has my wholehearted support for his amendment. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: I should like to speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 in this group, which relate to the annual report of the commissioner.
	The Bill proposes that the commissioner should report to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State should then lay the report before Parliament. Only when this has happened will it be legally permissible for the report to be published. I am not happy about that, because it seems to me to be yet another manifestation of the commissioner's lack of freedom and independence from Ministers.
	Concerns have been expressed to me by a large number of outside bodies—including Barnado's, the Children's Society, NSPCC, UNICEF, and a whole host of other eminent organisations—that a government Minister should not have the power to delay publication of the commissioner's annual report. To the noble Baroness it may seem a preposterous suggestion that any of her colleagues would want to delay publication; but, if that is so, why not take this provision out of the Bill? It is unnecessary and its presence only arouses unpleasant suspicions.
	It seems to me, however, that there is an even more fundamental point here. Allowing the commissioner to report to Parliament ensures that it is Parliament and not the government of the day to whom he is accountable in an important sense. The Secretary of State would of course be able to lead an annual debate on the commissioner's work and recommendations, and that is as it should be, but it would be for the commissioner himself to determine the content and timing of his report. I would personally favour having the commissioner present his report to a Select Committee of the other place. The other three UK Commissioners report directly to their respective legislative bodies, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman can make annual and other reports direct to Parliament.
	There are therefore clear precedents for reporting arrangements to be structured in this way—and for good reasons. The point of wanting to have a commissioner who is independent is not only that this accords with the letter and the spirit of the recommendations issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child; it is also because if children ask, "Who is this person acting for us?", the most off-putting answer they could receive would be, "This is a Children's Commissioner who is appointed by government Ministers, reports to government Ministers, and may not publish his reports until government Ministers tell him that he can". Children need to feel that they have their own champion battling for them, not some offshoot of government.
	I am also proposing, following on from Amendment No. 31, that the commissioner's annual report should be produced in a format which is readily understandable to children over the age of 12 years. If we really want children to feel that this is their commissioner, the commissioner needs to be able to communicate with them in language that they can comprehend. It is a simple point, but I think it is an important one. I beg to move.

Lord Rix: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made an argument for not delaying the report. Until last week, I served on the Joint Committee considering the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. We have delayed our report to both Houses of Parliament—that is the choice of the committee—because we wish it to be available in all accessible formats before it is laid before Parliament.

Baroness Andrews: Although it is usually the task of an office of this House, which is by nature unpopular—the Whips' Office—I take this opportunity of saying something that is not popular before I start. We had some excellent debates this morning, but we are lagging behind on our timetable slightly. I will try to set a good example, as other noble Lords have done, by speaking to the amendment fairly swiftly. I hope that we can make faster progress this afternoon, otherwise it will be a long time before we reach some of the Bill's very interesting and difficult aspects.
	The amendments all relate to the publication of the commissioner's annual report, apart from Amendment No. 31, which relates more generally to the material. Of course we see the annual report as a highly significant public document. It is an opportunity for the commissioner to record in a formal document, laid before Parliament, what he has done and what he has found out in the course of his work, the issues he has prioritised, the actions he has taken to improve outcomes and the responses he has had to those actions. It will be an extremely important document; we want it to be read as widely as possible and to inform public debate and public policy. We have the example of how the Welsh commissioner, on the evidence of the Minister for Health and Social Services, has already, in his very robust fashion, made such an impact.
	The case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 31 is completely accepted and understood. There is no doubt that we want the commissioner's report to be read by young people, whatever their situation and capabilities. That is the purpose of creating the office of the commissioner in the first place. They will have informed his work; they will inform the way in which he presents the argument. I am absolutely sure that if he is going to take any evidence on how best he should produce the report on the Internet and put it on the website, the greatest experts in the world will be 12 year-olds. They will tell him exactly how to do it—how to make the links, do the graphics, get the sound, and so on.
	We are intent on involving children and making sure that disabled children, who, in many cases, have a particular facility for hand-held technologies, will be able to access the report as much as possible.
	Over the past few years, we have made real progress in how best to reach children, how to consult and listen to them, and how to articulate and amplify their voice. We issued 30,000 copies of the children's version of Every Child Matters and received 3,000 responses from children, so we have had good practice and good examples of how to do this. Your Lordships will ensure that we do not miss the point and I am sure that any commissioner worth his or her salt will do the same.
	We would be wise to see it as an absolute priority that the commissioner should do that but not put it on the face of the Bill. We do not want to prescribe what the commissioner will do; we have confidence in him or her meeting the point with enthusiasm and ingenuity. We would expect the commissioner to produce at least one version for children or young people.
	The problem of prescription is illustrated by Amendment No. 48, which is quite prescriptive in seeking to produce a version for children aged 12 and above. We have to ask: why 12? We could all produce a 12 year-old who is very different from every other 12 year-old. Some will have a reading age of seven, while others will have a reading age of 27. It is quite difficult pitching the age right. We could argue that what is needed is a report which would be available to those with the youngest reading age. I am thinking especially of looked-after children, for whom the reading facility is not always there.
	I think we have to leave it to the commissioner's discretion and judgment to decide exactly what he needs to produce to get the key points of his actions and concerns over to children. I restate my conviction that he will do this.
	The noble Baroness's point about minority languages is extremely important. I dispute the assertion that Welsh is a minority language—it is, of course, the language of heaven, so we have to be very careful how we describe it.
	To be frank, we did not expect Amendment No. 45 to be linked to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. As we will be having a very long debate on information sharing, I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind if we postpone that debate for now and refer to this amendment when we come to the later ones.
	Amendments Nos. 47 and 49, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would provide that the commissioner report directly to Parliament, bypassing the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble Earl is the least sinister person in the House; I am sure that he does not mean me to interpret the amendments in any sinister fashion. I can assure him that we have no intention of compromising the independence of the commissioner. It is normal parliamentary procedure and applies to other annual reports which are a record of work programmes and work achieved. It does not amount to a means of censorship. Indeed, we will measure the report's independence by its robustness. Again, I refer to the Welsh commissioner, who has produced some very robust reports.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness is being very complimentary about the Welsh commissioner, but the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge, was not so earlier this week, when she appeared before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. According to a report in the Western Mail, Mrs Hodge said it was disappointing that Mr Clarke, the commissioner, had produced only one report in three years. She furthermore confirmed that she would not extend Mr Clarke's powers to represent the rights of Welsh children on non-devolved issues. Again, that somewhat contradicts what we heard in this House in an earlier debate.

Baroness Andrews: I believe that the commissioner's report was very robust. The Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, says quite explicitly in her evidence that he has helped to inform public policy in Wales and is doing the job he is there to do in representing Welsh children. I will not reopen the debate we had on Wales at this point, if the noble Lord will forgive me. We will have opportunities to return to that later.
	The fact that the commissioner's annual report goes to the Secretary of State is a matter of courtesy and practice. It is not an opportunity for alteration and delay. I am sure we would all agree that a Secretary of State would not dream of delaying or interfering with the nature of the Ofsted report, for example.
	This annual report is a different animal from the others that the commissioner will be making available and putting on the website. Noble Lords have expressed a concern that the Secretary of State may sit on or delay a report. I do not believe that that would happen, and he certainly cannot change its contents, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that he must lay it before each House within any set period.
	Clause 3(4) requires the commissioner to publish his report in general as soon as possible after the report is laid before Parliament. It is not unreasonable to accept a similar condition on the Secretary of State's duty under Clause 3(3)(b). If the Committee will permit, I will return with wording to that effect on Report. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her response. By withdrawing Amendment No. 31, I have to accept for the moment that the Government will not put the issue of appropriate material on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that they will undertake at least to include in the job description for the Children's Commissioner that information should be provided to the children in all accessible formats.
	I accept the common sense of debating Amendment No. 45 later on. I will leave to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the task of deciding what to do with the other two amendments. However, it may be all right for the Minister to promise on behalf of her Government that there is no sinister intent and that there would be no deliberate delay in publishing the commissioner's report. Certainly, when the Liberal Democrats come to power, I will make a similar promise on behalf of my own party. I will leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to say what he would do were the Conservatives ever to gain power again. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 2, line 19, after "children" insert ", including in particular disabled children,"

Baroness Byford: We debated this amendment earlier, and I want to thank noble Lords who spoke to it. I have a suggestion for the Minister. I thank her for her acceptance that all children will be included in all relevant stages in the Bill. I accept the reservations made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, with regard to identifying each group, although I do not necessarily agree with him. The Minister told the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that she would consider young people between the ages of 18 and 21 in relation to the amendments that he moved. That is equally relevant to disabled children between those ages, who would rather be called disabled young people.
	I hope that this is a helpful suggestion. We tried to include "disabled" in subsection (3)(e). If the Minister cannot accept that, she may be willing to consider between now and the next stage including a new paragraph (f) reading "equality and opportunity", which would cover all of the discussions we had earlier on. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am always grateful for suggestions and I will of course go away and consider the noble Baroness's point. The specific point that I made to the noble Earl related to the relationship between the commissioner and young people in care in the context of young people who are learning disabled.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister because there are young disabled people in care and they have concerns that need to be addressed. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Lord Geddes: I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 35 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 36 because of pre-emption.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (6).

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: The purpose of these amendments, which are supported by the vast majority of children's organisations, is to give the commissioner power, albeit within very strict limits and criteria, to conduct formal investigations were the commissioner and not the Secretary of State—as the Bill currently states—to decide that that is the logical and required route. Again, the commissioner rather than the Secretary of State would have the power to decide when reports of formal investigations should not be published—in exceptional circumstances, for example, when the identification of individual vulnerable children would not be in the best interests of those children.
	The clause also places a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay copies of investigation reports before Parliament as soon as reasonably possible. As currently worded, Clause 4(1) allows the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry into the case of an individual child. Thus, in both instances the essential independence of action that the commissioner's role requires—and, as we all know, the Government themselves want—is immediately undermined. Those supporting these amendments believe that the English commissioner must be able independently—not just at the behest of the Secretary of State—to undertake such investigations and be equipped with the necessary tools such as the right of access to documents, the power to enter institutions and meet children in private and summon witnesses. Currently, the Secretary of State not the commissioner decides, apparently unilaterally, when, how and if such a report should be published.
	Nobody is suggesting that the commissioner's role should be almost exclusively dealing with individual complaints or conducting formal inquiries. Indeed, the restrictions on the circumstances in which such inquiries could be conducted are made very clear in the Bill. However, for the commissioner to be the independent champion for children that the Government have repeatedly stated that they want, these changes, which strengthen that vital independent role, are surely essential.
	It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why these strengthened powers, which seem to be an integral part of the commissioner's role in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are not considered relevant to the English commissioner's responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us about what lies behind that. The amendments set out clear criteria for the exceptional occasions when the commissioner can use his or her formal powers. It is worth remembering, as I pointed out in my speech at Second Reading, that budget considerations will also be a major influence on the extent to which the commissioner uses his or her power. I hope that the Minister and, indeed, the Government will feel able to accept these important and essentially reasonable amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 36, which would alter the word "may" to "must". I accept that these amendments would ensure that the commissioner "could" order an investigation into an individual child, which we believe is right. Although I accept that that would normally go through the Director of Children's Services, it seems unfair that children in England will be denied the same rights as children in the devolved administrations. The question was raised at Second Reading when the Minister did not explain—and has not since, as far as I am aware, explained—why England will be dealt with in a different manner. Is it right that we should be approving a two-class system? Why are the Government making such a proposal? I urge the Minister to re-examine this important error. Do we really want to create a first and second class citizen for those only making the mistake to live in the wrong part of the UK? My noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Lucas, Lord Hanningfield and others have all referred to this.
	In its submission to me, the Disability Rights Commission said that Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 would ensure that the commissioner could conduct an investigation of the case of an individual child. It also says:
	"We consider this to be a basic aspect of an effective commissioner and we note that other children's commissioners have used such powers to good effect without letting any individual casework detract from their more strategic activities. In any case, individual cases can often lead to strategic and broader change long-term".
	It is an important issue and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it formally today. As I said earlier, although the numbers in England are obviously larger than in the devolved administrations, it does seem odd to us.
	I move now to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. It seems curious that a Bill which sets up the office of the Children's Commissioner does not confer on him the power to go to court in the interests of children, nor to be heard in court or tribunal hearings—the outcome of which may,—inter alia, affect the interests of children generally. In other words, I am slightly surprised at having to move this amendment.
	If children are to have a champion—and that champion is to be tasked with placing them and their needs centre-stage—he must, we believe, have access to the courts. The very fact he has the right to bring proceedings or to intervene may ensure he never has to do so. If he is not given that right, almost certainly it will prove to have been an oversight.
	With regard to Amendment No. 70, I have no legal training and am, therefore, not qualified to pontificate on the shortcomings of the law in relation to actions brought by children. However, I do know that it is possible that there are aspects of the law—particularly inheritance law in parts of the UK—which seem to act against the best interests of the child. A children's champion must be able to enter the lists in defence of his duty and to take up cudgels on the child's behalf where there is none other fit or willing to do so.
	The Commissioner Campaign Co-ordinating Group has sent a strong lobby about the issue of the Children's Commissioner. I stress again, only in exceptional circumstances would they see the commissioner being asked to take on this particular role. The commissioner's overall purpose can be summarised as working with children to get things changed—I think we all agree with that. Achieving this will mostly rely on the commissioner being effective and an authoritative advocate and mediator, which we talked about earlier.
	However, there will be some occasions when the circumstances of an individual child or group of children can only be improved through the commissioner making legal intervention. An example of that would be the child who has been on the local children protection register for more than a year without the allocated social worker. Pursuing a remedy through the courts would assist the individual child as well as others in similar circumstances—exactly the kind of strategic role I believe the Government envisaged. Courts and tribunals have a unique and essential function in reviewing the safeguarding of children's human rights. It is an absurd prospect to have a commissioner charged with improving children's rights who sometimes cannot use the legal proceedings to achieve that aim.

Baroness Whitaker: I would like briefly to support these amendments because of the experience of the Joint Committee on Human Rights when we visited the children's commissioners in Australia and New Zealand. They would not have achieved their very significant improvements without powers of this kind. That is all I need to say about that, other than to urge my noble friend again to look at the report on the Children's Commissioner by the Joint Committee.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I should like—

Baroness David: I shall speak to Amendment No. 66, to which my name is put, in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I support this new clause because children must have—as they have been promised—a strong and independent commissioner. The independence of the commissioner has been stressed all through this Committee stage, as I think we all want a really independent commissioner. This means that the commissioner must have the power on his or her own initiative to undertake a formal investigation with appropriate powers when it seems necessary to do so.
	I believe we are all in agreement that we do not want the commissioner to undertake a lot of time-consuming formal investigations. Subsection (1) of the new clause provides criteria to limit strictly the decision to undertake a formal investigation. This decision must be the commissioner's and not that of a Minister. It is not possible to reconcile the concept of an independent commissioner with the current provision in the Bill, which only allows the commissioner strong investigative powers when directed by the Secretary of State.
	We appreciate the commissioner will be able to carry out general investigations into anything that comes within his or her general functions. However, under the current Part 1 of the Bill, in doing so the commissioner will have no more powers than a voluntary organisation, a journalist or an individual Peer. It does not help for Ministers of this Government to say that, of course, there will be consultation with the commissioner before a direction. That misses the point.
	We all hope that the commissioner and the relevant Secretary of State will develop close and respectful relationships; that can only be in the children's interests. There is no room for ministerial direction in this relationship. We are establishing the commissioner not just to work with this Government but with other future governments who may not have the same concern for children's interests. It needs emphasising, perhaps, that the commissioner, as an unelected body, has no powers to overturn the decisions of elected government.
	The commissioner's powers are those of review, investigation and reporting. In general, they are powers to influence, and influence comes with authority. That is why—if this new office is to be taken seriously and enabled to act as a powerful champion for children—the commissioner must have the right to use, on his or her own initiative, formal investigative powers.
	I hope for some acknowledgement from the Government today that Part 1 of this welcome Bill needs looking at again to ensure that the commissioner is—and will be seen to be—independent, and that we are establishing something with sufficient powers to add value to the organisations working for children.
	In its foreign policy and in international development, the UK has been prominent in promoting to other countries the need for strong, independent human rights institutions. Now we need to create one for England's children. The Government are to be warmly congratulated on initiating the creation of commissioners across the UK. However, it is our task here to ensure that Part 1 of the Bill leaves this House fulfilling the expectations of children and of all those, including myself, who have campaigned for so long for an independent children's champion.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I add my voice to those who have regretted the inclusion of subsection 2(6) prohibiting the commissioner from conducting an investigation into the case of an individual child. Perhaps the first point to note is that the Welsh commissioner does have this right, both under primary legislation and secondary regulations passed by the National Assembly. However, as I indicated earlier, judging by the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge's remarks to the Welsh Affairs Committee on Monday, she does not think much of this right, or the Welsh commissioner's use of it. Again, I refer to this report in the Western Mail, where it states:
	"Minister for Children Margaret Hodge yesterday launched an extraordinary attack on the work of the Wales' champion for the young Peter Clarke. The Minister accused Mr Clarke's office of getting 'bogged down' in individual cases and 'losing sight' of the 'bigger picture' on child welfare in Wales".
	Towards the end of the report came the remarks that I quoted in my intervention, when she deplored the fact that Mr Clarke had produced only one report in three years and confirmed that she would not extend his powers to represent the rights of Welsh children on non-devolved issues. Again, I stress that that is somewhat different from what we have heard in this House.
	We all know the danger of getting bogged down in individual casework. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to precisely that the other day. However, there are some now notorious cases with which we wish to heaven that someone outside the formal network had got to grips before those situations developed. We shall probably be told that it is not intended to be a function of the commissioner to look into the Victoria Climbie or Toni-Ann Byfield type of case, unless such cases give rise to a general issue, or the Secretary of State directs under Clause 4(1). I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that it deprives the commissioner of independence of action if he can act only when directed by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the commissioner was best placed to judge whether he should look into an individual case.
	Such cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has told us, usually do have general implications. That was pointed out in a letter in Monday's edition of the Times. Elizabeth Ewart-James, the author of the letter, deserves to be quoted. She has frontline experience and is familiar with the realities of child care. She wrote:
	"One of the causes of tragedies such as that of Toni-Anne Byfield, the little girl shot dead while in the care of Birmingham social services . . . is lack of staff. Local authorities should keep childcare teams fully staffed, even if managers and those in the plethora of peripheral posts have to stand in for limited periods.
	"This would keep them in touch with what is happening on the front line, where I have been working for the most part. Freezing childcare posts to save money should not be permitted.
	"There are highly paid managers spending their time promoting better communication, as was recommended after the Victoria Climbie inquiry, although there are dangerously few workers in the field.
	"Society clearly wants vulnerable children protected and few people want to do this difficult and stressful job. Surely salaries should also go up".
	Perhaps that last part is a bit of special pleading. However, the thing that I noted about that letter, which is worth noting, is the contrast between lack of staff in social services and the "plethora of peripheral posts", with highly paid managers concerned with communication and,
	"dangerously few workers in the field".
	That is the reality, even after the horrors revealed by successive inquiries, from Waterhouse onwards. It was the Waterhouse inquiry that shocked me, because I had been a Minister in the Welsh Office—although I am glad to say that I was not the responsible Minister over the relevant period examined by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. But I am still deeply shocked to this day that few people knew what was going on.
	The Children's Commissioner cannot really be worthy of his title if he cannot dip his toe into the morass that we know exists, which he can do only by examining individual cases. I suspect that the purpose of the subsection is to stress where responsibility lies; namely, with the local authorities that provide social services, schooling, healthcare and the police, if they are called in, as well as the various inspectorates. I understand the Government's viewpoint, and that is all very well, provided that authorities are adequately staffed, trained and resourced, which they seldom are, as most of us know—including those on the Front Bench opposite.
	We may well ask some very awkward questions about the Bill, and its entire purpose, if the subsection stands unchanged. Is it simply to provide a public relations facade—a "plethora of peripheral posts", as Elizabeth Ewart-James described them? If there is a grain of truth in that suggestion, the Bill is seriously missing the point. It cannot meet the real needs of the situation if the Children's Commissioner cannot gain direct experience of them. That would be a very harsh judgment on the Bill, but some highly respected children's organisations have made comments that tend towards that conclusion, although they are too gentlemanly or ladylike to say so pointedly.
	The Bill's real target should be the prevention of the horrible tragedies that we have read about and which have horrified the public. To aim at anything short of that is really to miss the point. To prohibit the commissioner from examining individual cases in the blanket fashion in which the subsection does it makes him a tangential figure in tackling one of the major issues of our times. We must either eliminate the prohibition in this subsection or amend it in line with Amendment No. 36, which would allow the commissioner to examine the individual case if necessary.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have listened to the debate with something of a sinking heart. The concerns that I have had throughout about the appointment of commissioners in general relate to the way in which we project on to them all the solutions to the ills that we have in social care.
	I have been a director and assistant director of social services in some of the most difficult areas in London. I have been the chief executive of Childline and have therefore listened to thousands of children talking about the issues that are causing them difficulty. Now I am the deputy chair of CAFCASS.
	The issues are very much the same year in and year out. There is, as the noble Lord said, a real shortage of social workers. It is a long historical position that we lost many social workers in many difficult years when social services were cut back significantly. I am a Cross-Bencher and have no political view on the matter, but in those difficult years we lost the professional impetus that gave people the understanding of how to deal with the issues. The commissioner can in no way put those things right unless he takes the overview, looks at local authorities across the board and, with the inspectorates such as the Commission for Social Care Inspection, raises his voice about where the difficulties are. He must identify the local authorities with no stars and where authorities are pushing ahead on behalf of children.
	I have had the unfortunate experience of being subject to four child death inquiries, on the receiving end. People could say that that was something to do with my work but, if one chooses to work in really high-risk areas and is prepared to put one's shoulder to those ploughs, children do die. It is sometimes the responsibility of the workers; it is most often not. I wish that noble Lords would wait to hear the outcome of inquiries before making judgments about what happened. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that parents, not the workers, kill children. That does not mean that I do not think we should hold workers to account. I myself have been held to account for things that I did not do so I know what that is like.
	If the Minister accedes to some of these issues, I should like to be absolutely assured that the boundaries between the work of the commissioner and that of other bodies are clear. If there were to be an inquiry, what would the conflict be as regards the area child protection committees—to be called safeguarding boards—and a Part 8 review if that was proposed? Would the commissioner be dragged totally into child protection when my hope is that he or she will look at children across the board as we develop a much more pro-active, preventive role for him or her?
	If the commissioner is to go to court, what would be the conflict between guardians and reporting officers? I am pleased to say that CAFCASS is improving daily and more children are being properly represented. We have to be very clear about such issues of detail. If we have experience from the devolved authorities, could we know what it is? Have they undertaken investigations? If they have, what was the outcome? I ask that even though I am not necessarily clear that that would translate to England. As I have said often enough in this debate, our situation is very different from those in the devolved authorities. I have run an organisation, and now work in an organisation, that works in all the countries within the UK and therefore I have some understanding of that.

Baroness Thornton: That was an extremely pertinent interjection. However, does the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, agree that it is really important to compare the boundaries? Where the devolved authorities' children's commissioners have carried out investigations—I am ignorant of that—what were the boundaries and how did they define them? Surely we need to know that before we can make a judgment. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is the case?

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: It is one of the issues. Those boundaries constitute the difficult areas in which we would find ourselves should the commissioner undertake the kind of investigation that we are discussing.

Lord Laming: I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The one thing on which I believe we in this Chamber would all agree is that we would like the post of children's commissioner to be successful. The debate that we had on earlier amendments revealed the extent of the range of issues that we hoped that the children's commissioner would be sensitive to and would be willing to pursue. They constitute an enormous range of issues.
	Unlike many other countries that have children's commissioners, in this country there are in excess of 11 million children and young people. When the Committee considers the range of situations that we highlighted in our earlier discussions, let alone the ones that we did not have time to discuss, it is clear that the person who occupies the post of Children's Commissioner, if he or she is to be a champion for all children and young people, will have to take a very wide view of their role and their responsibilities.
	I hope that there will never be another Victoria Climbie inquiry, partly because I hope that no child will suffer as Victoria did, but also because I hope that we can find other ways of discovering what went wrong in such cases. But if we are to do that, the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner to investigate matters of that kind, and to have the power to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred, needs to be used with a great deal of discretion and care.
	When I was the chief inspector of social services I was constantly requested by individuals to look into their grievances resulting from the decisions of courts, social workers, police officers, schools or whatever. Since I retired as chief inspector I have continued to receive those requests.
	My fear is that we shall overwhelm the post of Children's Commissioner but, more than that, that we shall drag it back into a narrow role of being concerned with second-guessing the issues of other decision-making bodies. There is the mechanism in each of those bodies to review decisions that have been made. I believe that we could drag the post back into a narrow confine concerned with matters of child protection. Matters of child protection are, of course, immensely important but if we are to have a Children's Commissioner who will promote the well-being of all children and young people in our society, we must keep that vision before us and not allow ourselves to be dragged back into what is a very limited role for such a post. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the hope with this Bill is that the role of the Children's Commissioner will be broad-based and that he or she will be responsible for promoting the well-being of all children and young people whatever their needs may be.

Baroness Walmsley: I should like to associate noble Lords on these Benches with Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 66, 69 and 70 to which I have also put my name. They seek to ensure that we have a commissioner who is both independent of government and equal with the existing commissioners in the other jurisdictions. It will cause enormous difficulty, not least in terms of the interaction between the new commissioner and the existing commissioners, if the new commissioner does not have the same level of powers.
	I believe in listening to people who have done the job. I always listen with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I have also recently listened to the commissioners themselves who are already in post. They were very critical about the lack of power to enter premises, to conduct individual investigations, to conduct wider investigations without the say-so of the Secretary of State and so on and on. It is quite clear that they believe that the power to conduct inquiries into individual cases is absolutely necessary, as they put it, as a last resort. They do not expect to be the first port of call in an individual case, but they consider that it is necessary for them to have that power as a last resort. Why are the Government so reluctant to give the new commissioner the same powers as the existing commissioners?
	In my opinion this matter comes back to what I said on Second Reading; namely, that the Government are not prepared to give enough resources to the new commissioner. The Government have talked about the large number of children in England. I pointed out that if you look at the resources that are proposed for the new commissioner, each child would have only something like one-twelfth or one-fifteenth of the resource per child compared with the resource that is given to the commissioners in the other parts of the UK to deal with their children.
	The difficulties of size could be addressed first of all by adequate resources being given in terms of financial support and in terms of staff, some of whom could act as assistant regional commissioners or assistant London commissioner, as we shall debate later in connection with amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
	One way of addressing the matter of avoiding overwhelming the commissioner with work, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned, is to take away the responsibility of the new commissioner for anything to do with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The commissioners in those countries are coping extremely well at the moment. The Scottish commissioner has not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate what she can do but certainly the Welsh and Northern Irish commissioners are doing very well indeed and want to be allowed to continue to get on with their job in their own jurisdictions in their own way. So there are ways of addressing the issue of size for the new English commissioner, as I like to think of the post, as opposed to UK commissioner. I do not accept the Government's claim that because England is so different and so much bigger they cannot give the same level of powers and independence to the new commissioner. The Minister is one of the most listening Ministers in this Government and we thank her for the response that she has already given at this very early stage in the Bill. I hope that she will be able to go back and use her considerable powers of persuasion with the powers that be above her pay grade to see what she can do to improve this part of the Bill.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise to add my support to Amendment No. 35. The experience in Wales shows that the commissioner is involved in listening and signposting but that he needs accurate intelligence to detect whether something is the tip of an iceberg or a one-off situation that warrants inquiry. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether, as the England/UK commissioner cannot undertake an inquiry, he will be obliged to call for an inquiry from another body if an issue appears suspect and warrants further investigation? Can she explain which body might then be enlisted and how it would be financed? How will work for children in Wales, who are primarily under non-devolved authorities, be affected by having two commissioners, one with an ability to investigate and one without? Will that restrict the ability of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to investigate within his current powers? He is independent of the Assembly and has undertaken an independent role.

Lord Elton: The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has shone a spotlight on a very difficult situation, legal and social, that can develop if unlimited powers of inquiry are unleashed. This makes me reflect on what we mean by inquiry. In respect of understanding what is going on and of being seen to be a person and not an organisation, I think that the commissioner needs an ability to talk to individuals and to discover individual situations. That does not need the death of a child or a court case. He should have the power to find out how little Johnny came to miss school for three weeks because it will illustrate and provide a sharpening up of his general inquiry into the condition of children going to school. Without that, his inquiries are going to be statistical, not personal, and he will be seen as an apparatus, not as a person.
	I am glad to see the noble Baroness nodding—not that noble Baroness but the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I shall not attempt to describe for the benefit of readers of Hansard the gesture that the other noble Baroness on the Front Bench has just made; it was entirely supportive, but it was not easy to interpret.
	The point that I am trying to make is that the commissioner must know what goes on in individual cases if the statistics about what goes on in all cases are to be correctly interpreted. I hope that, at a later stage, some formulation will be discovered to do that without wheeling out the commissioner to act as some sort of quasi-judicial body.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have not spoken previously in the debates on the Bill and I do so now only as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have been looking at the Children Bill, and particularly at the powers of the Children's Commissioner and the powers that might apply to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Our report on that subject was published yesterday. It repays careful attention because we touch upon a number of issues that will arise on this amendment and others about, for example, the danger of swamping a commission with too many individual cases, rather than having a strategic look, the importance of independence and of powers, the kind of powers and so on. I would mark the document and urge those who are present and those beyond this Committee to study it very carefully because it is the fruits of our evidence.
	We have not yet published our report on the Children Bill and the Children's Commissioner so what I am now saying, I am saying in an entirely personal capacity. However, I think it is true that, in the evidence that we took from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we were all struck by the lack of equal powers to be given to the English commissioner. That seemed to all of us to be unacceptable. I shall perhaps touch on that in some of the later amendments. We were also very troubled about the questions of independence that will arise in some later amendments.
	The particular issue about individual complaints that has just been mentioned by my noble friend is quite difficult. I agree with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that plainly the individual child must be able to be taken into account in the general strategic work being done by the Children's Commissioner. If the prohibition into investigating an individual child is literally intended to rule out considering the cases of individual children, it would be deplorable. On the other, if what is meant—although it is not in any way expressed in the Bill—is that the commissioner is to concentrate strategically on issues of general importance to children and young people and should not be saddled with a vast caseload of individual complaints, then the report that we published yesterday on the more general issue of the Equality and Human Rights Commission bears reading upon that subject.
	My noble friend Lady Walmsley was not present to hear this, but the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish commissioners gave evidence to us and one or two members of the committee asked whether England is different because of the size of the population and whether therefore there might be a case for a slightly different view. To my surprise they seemed to recognise that "one solution fits all" might not make perfect sense so far as complaints are concerned and that perhaps one would need to have some adjustment. I say that only because it is important that the Committee should know that that is the way in which the matter is being looked at. That is not to say that I do not entirely agree with what my noble friend has said; it is simply that the evidence has been taken by that committee and this report deals with one of the issues that has arisen.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been a very important debate and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have given the Committee the benefit of their expertise and knowledge in examining these issues around the role of the commissioner. There is clearly a very strong measure of agreement that we want a powerful independent role representing the views and interests of all children and young people and an agreement in substance that children and young people should be able to seek redress effectively.
	The Government's approach is that an investigatory or casework role would be unmanageable for the reasons that I gave in my Second Reading speech. We are a country of 11.7 million children and we believe that the proper role for the commissioner is to ensure that complaints procedures that already exist are accessible and effective in handling individual cases concerning children and young people. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for referring to the report published yesterday, which I have not yet had a chance to study. The comments that he made about commissions being swamped are important and I shall study the report.
	In my Second Reading speech I said very clearly—I say it again to the noble Lord, Lord Lester—that the commissioner can talk to anybody or to any service provider. There are no constraints on who he talks to. Indeed, we would expect the commissioner to talk to individuals, organisations and representatives of organisations in the course of his work. But fundamentally our judgment is that the role of the commissioner is to complement existing children's services and not to replace them. We believe that investigations are often best carried out by local social services or other such bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, eloquently said. I shall not attempt to repeat their points, but I agree with them completely. It is important that we do not second guess the work of other agencies but that we give the commissioner the strategic role that we believe is so very important.
	Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 66 would allow the commissioner to investigate individual cases. We believe that that fundamentally changes the nature of the commissioner that we have set up and that to adopt this approach in England would run a risk of the commissioner being caught up in a large number of individual cases. We do not believe that that would enable the commissioner to fulfil the powerful strategic and influencing role that we wish him to play. As I said, that is by no means to dispute the need for satisfactory handling of individual cases.
	As noble Lords indicated, different arrangements are in place in other parts of the United Kingdom. When the commissioners addressed the all-party group at which I was present, the Welsh commissioner said that he currently had 500 cases before him. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that I value and recognise the excellent work that the Welsh commissioner and his colleagues do. I was not there when my right honourable friend participated nor have I yet seen a transcript of what was said. However, I can say, because I have just checked, that she did not criticise the work of the Welsh commissioner for the quality of the report. I think it is important to say that in this place.
	This is not about creating, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, described, a two-class system. We have a different approach. That is not to devalue or undervalue the work of any other commissioner; it is simply to say that we judge an alternative as more suited to our circumstances. I would wish that to be clear and to send my good wishes to the other commissions with which we are working.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I know that we all want to achieve the ultimate goal of ensuring that all children are well represented and looked after by an independent commissioner. However, perhaps I may remind her that our amendment says that the commissioner "may" investigate, not that he or she has to investigate everything. It just provides them with the facility to do so. Current systems would deal with the sort of complaints that she thinks might be referred to the commissioner on an individual rather than strategic basis. But is that not true also in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? What is different in the devolved administrations? I cannot see the logic of that argument.
	I can see the logic in saying that there are more children in England; I have no difficulty with that. Later in our consideration of the Bill, perhaps we will consider the possibility of having more than one commissioner for England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was perhaps hinting. However, I leave that point for now. The immediate problem is that the Minister seems to be asking for a completely different system for England without a justification for the request other than numbers. The systems available to England are the same as those in Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why I raise the issue now.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that issue, which I hope to address later in my comments. I say immediately, however, that the number of children dealt with is an issue; I would not for one second pretend that it is not. This is also about a different approach. As I say, that is not to devalue or undervalue other approaches. Our approach is to say that it is critically important that we have a commissioner who is focused on all children; who looks at the outcomes that children themselves have identified as of great importance, and continues to refine and re-examine those; and who takes a strategic overview, looking at systemic failure.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in raising not only the specific case of Toni-Ann Byfield but also the more general issue, described what he believes may be more systemic failure. The commissioner would unquestionably consider that. However, in our case, for a number of reasons, that would not entail looking at the individual cases. The first reason is the sheer volume, an issue to which I will return. Secondly, we believe that that is best done by looking at the way in which our current procedures and practices deal with individual cases. That is our approach. That is not to negate other approaches or to say that one approach is better than another. We have adopted and stand by that approach. We are absolutely clear that we believe in it.
	I was taken with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on Second Reading, when he said:
	"We must hold on to the belief that the main task of the commissioner is to be an advocate for all children . . . The post should not be used to second guess the decisions of the authorities, not only because there are well established mechanisms in place for that but also because the commissioner post will be worthwhile only if it brings a new dimension to the well-being of millions of children and young people".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1224.]
	I agree wholeheartedly with those comments.
	It is vital that those who provide services to children are listening to children and young people and taking action. As I have said several times already to the Committee, I do not believe that investing more than is appropriate in this individual and office will help to develop the commissioner role in the most appropriate manner. The commissioner is not a substitute for everything else. It is not a substitute for government or processes and procedures that are already in place. It enhances and adds to the value of what we can do. I am categorically clear that our approach to England will work well.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Of course the Children's Commissioner can consider the case of individual children at the discretion of the Secretary of State, but he cannot do it at his own discretion. Would it not be an indication of his independence of stature and his quality if he were allowed that discretion which is now reserved to the Secretary of State?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is where the noble Lord and I disagree. I may be a listening Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says, but I am absolutely clear about this. The role of the commissioner is as I have defined it; it is to enhance and to take the overview. We believe that there may be occasions when the Children's Commissioner is the most appropriate body to look at individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, did so well on behalf of all of us in investigating an individual case and not least in seeing what it told us about what needed to be done. This legislation is in part a result of that. We are very clear that there may be such circumstances. However, we are also clear that, as we have defined it, that is not the commissioner's key role and purpose.

Baroness Walmsley: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I do so for the purposes of clarity. Will she confirm that, under Clause 2(6), the Children's Commissioner cannot,
	"conduct an investigation of the case of an individual child",
	even with the say-so of the Secretary of State? I think that the Secretary of State's say-so is to do with general inquiries. Am I not correct about that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: What we have been clear about, and we shall debate the matter later, is that in the powers under Clause 5 the Secretary of State invests in the commissioner the ability to look at inquiries. That is important and we believe that that is an appropriate way to take the matter forward. It is completely understandable that noble Lords may take a different view, but the Government are clear where we want the commissioner to focus his attention and what we want him to do. As I have said, the situation is different from his colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world, but it is appropriate and is the right way forward. We are clear about that. I hope that I might continue on the basis that this is where the Government believe it is the most appropriate way forward. Bearing in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments and to reflect further on the matter.
	Amendment No. 37 makes a different proposal, which is that the commissioner could only pursue individual cases as part of a wider investigation. There is a fine distinction to be made here. For reasons that I have already given, we do not believe that it is appropriate for the commissioner to take up individual cases, but we do expect the commissioner to investigate issues that come to his attention as a result of approaches from individual children and to want to talk to children about their experiences in pursuing such issues. The commissioner will be able to advise the Secretary of State regarding cases that he or she believes warrant an inquiry. These are all options that will be open to the commissioner. They are distinct in nature from investigating individual cases, but I hope that they illustrate the wide-ranging discretion that the commissioner should have.
	Amendment No. 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes related proposals that would enable the commissioner to be involved in legal action on behalf of a child when he considers that such action is needed to establish a point in law. I have already explained that the main focus of the commissioner's work is on influencing the way that our system works to achieve better outcomes for children and young people. As part of this, the commissioner should be able to look into complaints and advocacy systems, as well as the legal system, to ensure they are child friendly and work effectively for children.
	However, it should remain the responsibility of existing bodies such as the Official Solicitor and CAFCASS to act on behalf of children. The commissioner will, of course—and this is important in addressing some of the concerns raised—participate as a witness in any court proceedings if called upon to do so. Again, both amendments could tie the commissioner up in casework to the detriment of the strategic role that we believe is most appropriate for us to set up. I therefore invite noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 also cover the commissioner's possible involvement in legal proceedings—in the case of Amendment No. 69, a power to bring or intervene in legal proceedings and in the case of Amendment No. 70, a power to provide assistance in relation to legal proceedings. Again, the question arises whether, in giving the commissioner such powers, we would cut across the avenues already open to children in need of legal representation. Representation and assistance for children seeking legal redress is already available through a next friend, a guardian ad litem or a "litigation friend". Alternatively, a child may itself instruct a solicitor if it is mature enough and this will be accepted by the court. In certain cases, such as applications for care and supervision orders, the court shall appoint a CAFCASS officer for the child. Giving a similar function to the commissioner would lead to duplication and confusion and, therefore, is not supported by the Government.
	The commissioner may, of course, make children aware of the existence of these arrangements and comment on their effectiveness in meeting children's needs, if appropriate. It is important that the legal system works to support children. But, we believe that the systems are in place. The commissioner's role is to check that the systems do work and to advise government. That is the right role for the commissioner, rather than to take on the role in person.
	Our approach is based on our judgment as to how the commissioner can be most effective in supporting children. We believe that these amendments would detract from that effectiveness. So, with those explanations of our intentions and with the over-arching view of all noble Lords that we want the commissioner to be effective in supporting children, I call upon noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Before the Minister sits down I have a brief question for clarification. She is persuasive in what she said about not having the power to investigate individual cases, but the noble Baroness talked about "systematic failure". Is it within the remit of the commissioner that he can investigate systematic failure? What counts as systematic failure? I will use an example from another field: a systematic failure might involve a hospital where there is an undue number of child deaths, or another hospital where issues of consent in relation to retained organs arise. Can the Minister give us an example or two of what might count as a systematic failure that would be within the remit of the commissioner to investigate?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will try to give the right reverend Prelate some examples and perhaps follow that up in writing and place a copy of the correspondence in the Library of the House, because it is important that we understand the distinctions.
	A commissioner, when he comes across incidents in children's lives, will have the power to look at anything that he wishes to, and talk to anybody he wants. To take an earlier example, the commissioner may see advertising that he believes tries to get children to do particular things, or may believe that we need to look at aspects of advertising. If, when looking at child healthcare issues, he is concerned that some children cannot get the advocacy that they need, or about whether particular aspects of healthcare are appropriate and relevant to children, he can investigate the matter, if he so wishes.
	If the Secretary of State believes that an individual case should be investigated, he has the power to direct the commissioner to do so. To take the obvious example, had there been a Children's Commissioner at the time of the Victoria Climbie case, the Secretary of State would have directed the commissioner to investigate it. That perhaps gives Members of the Committee some examples of the differences between the different powers.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I understand perfectly why an individual child's case might not be suitable for the work of the Children's Commissioner if there are effective alternative remedies. However, I do not understand why it is necessary under Clause 4(1), which we shall discuss later, for the Secretary of State to direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into the case of an individual child where it raises issues of relevance to other children. If we are to have a Children's Commissioner worthy of the name, I do not understand why that matter should not be within the complete discretion of the commissioner. That seems to be completely unnecessary state censorship.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is certainly not state censorship. If the law provides that the Children's Commissioner shall not deal with individual cases, we cannot then say that he can, if he so wishes, at his own discretion. We are clear that the role of the commissioner is strategic overview. He has an over-arching role to look at what happens systemically in support for children and to investigate, in conversations with children—taking his power from children—the issues that concern children and young people. He must look across a range of areas of public and other life to ensure that children are well cared for and that the systems respond. Where it is clear to him from his correspondence and elsewhere that that is not happening, his role is to carry out an investigation. That is absolutely clear.
	We recognise that there will be exceptional circumstances, such as the appalling tragedy of Victoria Climbie, where it is appropriate for an investigation to take place at the highest possible level to establish the lessons that must be learnt, not just from the individual tragedy, but for the whole system. Much that we had to learn from the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is invested in the legislation and, more importantly, in the Green Paper Every Child Matters. We have set up the opportunity, where it is clear that that will happen, for it to happen. To make that work in law, it is important that there be a direction from the Secretary of State. The Bill cannot provide that the commissioner may not look at individual cases but can do so sometimes.
	We have made clear the reality of the relationship. I have no doubt that, if the Children's Commissioner felt that certain cases needed to be investigated, he would be in dialogue with the Secretary of State about that. Regardless of the concerns of Members of the Committee that one Secretary of State might be receptive and another might not, these are matters of huge public interest that do not simply rest on the deaths of Secretaries of State. The Victoria Climbie case did not rest on such a factor; it shocked many noble Lords and much of the population. There was a response to that. There must be clarity about where the power comes from, but we would expect the Secretary of State and the commissioner to be in dialogue.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sorry to ask the same question in a slightly different way, but I am still not clear. I understand perfectly the argument and sympathise with it. However, I do not understand why one could not amend the law so that, instead of absolute prohibition of investigations of individual cases, it gave that as the starting point and provided the exception in Clause 4(1)—but instead of leaving the Whitehall official to decide, it would be up to the Children's Commissioner. The amendment would say,
	"except where in the case of an individual child there are issues of relevance to other children which, in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner, warrant investigation".
	I do not understand why we must control the Children's Commissioner in that respect, if we are to have one that is worth having at all. Why would the Minister be a better judge of such matters than the Children's Commissioner?

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I wish to ask about the residence of the power. One of the things that concern me greatly about commissioners generally is accountability. When there is a decision to have an inquiry of the standing that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was involved in, I have heard from him often that it ground him to a halt on everything else for a year. I assume that we would not want a commissioner to be personally undertaking the kind of investigation that took him out for a year. That kind of investigation takes place after much deliberation, not just by one person—the Secretary of State—but by a whole number of people taking advice. Who would decide with the commissioner how they would take this work forward if they are going to have these kinds of powers? I am simply probing where the boundaries are. I think it is absolutely unacceptable that any individual would have total power to decide to investigate something of the significance of the Climbie inquiry, without being accountable somewhere else in the system. I am totally unclear as to where that accountability is, certainly in the Welsh system—I am not as familiar with the others—and I would need to be clear if that were so in the English system. Otherwise it is power without accountability.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, has said, and the accountability in this case rests with the Secretary of State. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is trying to do and he is probing very well in determining the independence and the importance of the commissioner. We are clear that we do not wish to see a commissioner who becomes the court of last resort for every case, the place that everybody goes to because they have the discretion, instead of making sure that the system is working effectively. It is absolutely clear to us that the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government and accountable to Parliament, must be that place of last resort in working with the commissioner. It is critical for this new role that there is clarity about what it is and that we set this position up in a way that is appropriate to the role that the commissioner will be undertaking on behalf of children.

Lord Elton: I have a neutral and administrative question to ask. In this and other debates, the noble Baroness has promised to write to individual Members of the Committee and place copies in the Library. It would be immensely helpful if they could actually be copied direct to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate as well.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall be delighted to do that. I am very happy to send copies of all letters to all Peers who have taken part in the debate.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have not intervened before in the general discussion because I was not entirely certain that I was entitled to do so. I have listened to everything that has been said and there clearly are differences of views. I want to end on two points. First, the whole aim of our amendment was to remove the powers, exclusive to Secretaries of State, to direct either a form of investigation or undertake an individual investigation, and transfer them to the commissioner, as we believe is the case with the other commissioners. The reason for that was to strengthen the independence of the English commissioner, and to have parity between all of the commissioners.
	Secondly, it appears that 11 million children are going to have fewer rights than children in the other groupings. I find that very hard to understand. Earlier today we discussed rights and the Minister gave an undertaking that she would look at the whole process of whether rights could be written more firmly on the face of the Bill.
	In conclusion, because I know we are short of time, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage, but there is a great deal to think about between now and Report in terms of deciding whether one would wish to return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 2, line 25, leave out "may" and insert "must"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 not moved.]
	Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Annual report of Commissioner]:
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 2, line 42, at end insert "and an account of the steps taken by him to promote equality of opportunity"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: This amendment relates closely to Amendment No. 30, which would have ensured that the equal opportunity route was followed, as is required of other children's commissioners. Regardless of whether that amendment was accepted or not, there should still be a duty on the commissioner to report on equal opportunities issues that have come to his or her attention or on which he or she has taken action. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I have put my name to the amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that, even if, regrettably, the Government resist our proposal to put the promotion of equality of opportunity into the objectives of the Children's Commissioner, the public—minority groups in particular—will want to know, at least, what action the commissioner has taken during the year to promote equality of opportunity. It would not be unreasonable to put such an obligation on the commissioner into the Bill.
	Such a provision would be consistent with the positive equality duties set out in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Government's avowed commitment to a new, inclusive society. The precedents for such specific cross-cutting equality duties on statutory bodies include the equality duties imposed on the Learning and Skills Council and the Greater London Authority. Future disability legislation will impose duties on all public authorities to exercise their functions in a way that avoids adverse effects on, for example, disabled children and positively promotes disability equality. The same would apply to other minority groups.
	Similar duties are already in place for race, but no equivalent duties are planned for gender, sexual orientation or religion. Nor are there to be equivalent duties to promote equality regardless of family status, as would apply, for example, to looked-after children or children from one-parent families. It makes sense to have a broad-based duty on the commissioner to report on what he or she has done, so that the public could know what he or she has done to address issues of multiple discrimination and challenge the systems that create the discrimination that operates against such people.

Baroness Byford: My noble friend Lord Howe's name is attached to this amendment. As I have spoken at length on previous amendments, I shall not go through what I said again. I just wondered whether my suggestion of paragraph (f) might be relevant here. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind. I support the amendment.

Lord Rix: I thought that I had bagged paragraph (f) on Tuesday just before 10 p.m. I suggested that paragraph (f) would look at the relationship of children with families. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Baroness's suggestion becomes paragraph (g).

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I should like to explore something in respect of the amendment. I recall the Minister saying previously that she would accept an amendment to Clause 2(7), so that it would read,
	"the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I already have.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: That is what I am saying. Surely, if,
	"the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child",
	reference would have to be made to that convention in any report that he made. Is equality not very much covered in that convention?

Baroness Andrews: Members of the Committee are relentless in their pursuit of paragraphs (f) and (g). What can I say, except that we will look closely at their suggestions? Two issues are raised by this debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness: I shall take my cue from her. I shall not rehearse our commitment to disability and equal opportunities either. We had a very good debate earlier. I shall go straight to the substance.
	As regards reporting back on equality of opportunity, because the commissioner is concerned with outcomes and is doing his work within the framework of the UN convention, he will be bound to report on what he has achieved in terms of equality of opportunity. We know that outcomes are not equal for all children. Children's situations, circumstances, attitudes and ability to access information differ. It would be extremely unlikely that the commissioner would not report on how that fundamental objective was being achieved.
	The annual report will be an opportunity for the commissioner to tell us what he has achieved, what he has recommended and how those recommendations have been followed through. That will be his most important weapon in the armoury of public—I shall not use the term "shame"—exposure. We expect that to be as robust and clear as possible in terms of his achievements and other people's responses or, indeed, failure to respond.
	The commissioner may well decide—we would think that it is very unlikely that he would not decide—to report on equality of opportunity in his annual report and to follow through on all his actions and the responses to them. For the reasons that we are saying consistently, we would not want to prescribe too much in the Bill. With those assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
	"SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER
	(1) The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the following specific functions in respect of the sharing of information—
	(a) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom sections 8 and 23 apply guidance as to good practice in sharing information;
	(b) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom sections 8 and 23 apply guidance as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for those persons and bodies to share information;
	(c) to maintain under review the guidance set out at paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(2) In drawing up the guidance set out at subsection (1)(a) and (b), and in reviewing such guidance under subsection (1)(c), the Children's Commissioner shall consult with—
	(a) the Secretary of State;
	(b) the Information Commissioner;
	(c) such other interested persons and bodies with statutory responsibility for children as the Children's Commissioner sees fit.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to affirmation by each House of Parliament provide for the guidance referred to in subsection (1).
	(4) In this section, "information" has the same meaning as in section 8 and section 23."

Baroness Barker: I apologise to the Committee that I have been unable to be present so far due to other commitments, but I have been following the debates closely. In a sense, Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 are a precursor to the somewhat more substantial debates that we shall have on the vexed issue of Clause 8. At this point, I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this issue. I imagine that various Members of the Committee will want to talk about Clause 8 at considerable length. The purpose of these amendments is to place primary responsibility for the drawing up and dissemination of guidance on information sharing with the Children's Commissioner. Discussions so far on the many aspects of the post of Children's Commissioner have centred on the extent to which the commissioner will be viewed as the independent voice for children, whose first and last responsibility is for children and who therefore in practice would be best placed to issue guidance on what is perhaps the most difficult element in the whole Bill. Indeed, the sharing of information between professionals is one of the most difficult issues in childcare.
	Noble Lords will know that the issue of information sharing between professionals in this area has come up time and again. It is raised every time a review is held into a case where a child has died. Over the past 30 years people have sought a solution to the problem of how to get professionals to talk to each other effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to this in her speech at Second Reading. Many noble Lords are worried about the provisions in Clause 8 on information sharing, given how starkly they are set out.
	I believe that there is the potential for a false assumption to be made; that is, that the debate on information sharing will be conducted by two opposing forces. One force will comprise those of us who may be characterised as information anoraks versus those who care about children. That is a false and harmful distinction. It is to the credit of those whose primary knowledge of and responsibility for data holding and data transfer that they have recognised that the lengthy and no doubt eloquent arguments which will be put by the Minister about the need to ensure that such information sharing as takes place—and we all agree that it should do so—is done only in the best interests of children.
	Therefore the provisions of these amendments ensure that the responsibility for issuing guidance about this very difficult and tense operation lies with the Secretary of State and the Children's Commissioner working with the Information Commissioner. By placing responsibility with those people, it will be possible to make the most difficult of balanced judgments about what is in the best interests of children, thus achieving the balance required between the need for privacy and the need to share information that will protect children.
	I believe that the amendment also covers a particular matter to which it would be helpful to draw the attention of the Committee. I refer to the power of the Children's Commission to review and update guidance on information sharing. The world of information technology changes a great deal faster than do the workings of legislation. We believe that this would be an important and helpful contribution to what is perhaps one of the most vexed issues in social care. The provision will enable best practice to be continually updated and disseminated to practitioners.
	Perhaps this is a slightly premature debate since it is taking place in advance of our consideration of what may happen with Clause 8, but we believe that there is a good case to be made for ensuring that responsibility in this area lies with the Children's Commissioner. I beg to move.

The Earl of Northesk: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to which I have added my name. I need not add a great deal to the thinking and purposes that underline the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, the amendment foreshadows our debates on Clause 8 that we shall come to later in Committee. The Minister is in no doubt about the considerable misgivings that I and others have about that proposal in its current form. As I say, we will come to that in due course. For the moment, and given the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I shall focus on only one issue of relevance.
	I believe that the critical point here is that a distinction needs to be drawn between the concepts of information-sharing and data-sharing. As I have understood the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragedy of Victoria Climbie, there are two different but related problems to be addressed. There is the issue of what sort of mechanisms should be put in place to ensure appropriate recording of information and data about children, partly as a means of highlighting causes for concern at their earliest opportunity but also to ensure that wider, substantive issues in respect of children's interests and welfare are very much to the fore. In fact, the Minister was forceful in emphasising this in respect of an earlier amendment.
	In this context, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, advanced recommendation 17 in his report; namely:
	"The Government should actively explore the benefit to children of setting up and operating a national children's database on all children under the age of 16. A feasibility study should be a prelude to a pilot study to explore its usefulness in strengthening the safeguards for children".
	The Government's response to this is elucidated in Every Child Matters: Next Steps at paragraph 2.37, which states:
	"The Children Bill provides the framework for the establishment of information of information sharing systems to ensure that practitioners are able to provide children and their families with the help and support they need at the earliest opportunity".
	Indeed, this is endorsed by the Minister in her letter of 29th April, where she states:
	"The information databases we are proposing under Clause 8 represent an important tool to facilitate information sharing".
	In effect, this is a practical or technological problem, to which Clause 8 is the Government's proposed solution. However, there is the no less demanding problem of how to ensure that the sharing of information—of actually talking and communicating—is to be established among the various bodies, agencies and persons concerned with children's welfare.
	In turn, this is a cultural problem. The BMA observed in the tragic case of Victoria Climbie:
	"It was not that the professionals involved were unable to exchange information; it was that they didn't".
	It is salutary to reflect that very many of the recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, allude to this with varying degrees of emphasis. Indeed, in a speech in January of last year he observed:
	"I make clear in the report why I conclude that the wellbeing and safety of children cannot be achieved by one agency acting alone, but will continue to depend upon each of the key agencies fulfilling their distinctive and separate duties. More exhortation that services should work better together manifestly is not enough. Actual change is required".
	Although in the main the Bill is curiously silent on the point, the Government are equally aware of the requirement to address this, having stated in Every Child Matters:
	"We want to value the specific skills that people from different professional backgrounds bring, and we also want to break down the professional barriers that inhibit joint working".
	The amendment seeks to address the point. In giving the commissioner an overarching statutory duty to issue guidance as to best practice in respect of information-sharing, all those involved in the welfare of our children will be under no illusions as to the necessity of communicating with each other and talking amongst themselves as an essential component of their duties to offer children protection.
	I acknowledge that, up to a point, the Government are seeking to attend to this via the expedient of the statutory guidance on co-operation under Clause 6 and other parts of the Bill. None the less, it strikes me that, without this amendment or something like it, there is a very real risk that any data generated by Clause 8 may not be worth very much. If the issue of how to change the current culture of an apparent absence of information-sharing is not addressed—and we should bear in mind that the tragedies of Soham and Toni-Ann Byfield seem to have been afflicted with the same sort of malaise—it will be more certain that we have to endure further tragedies. The mere existence of the database proposed in Clause 8—the Government have identified it correctly as a "framework"—does not address the dilemma.
	It is perhaps a little presumptuous, but I conclude by suggesting that the amendment has the best chance of satisfying an earnestly felt desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who said:
	"I hope that never again will any senior manager or member be able to say, 'But I did not know. Nobody told me'".

Lord Laming: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for this very thoughtful amendment. A great deal of thought has gone into the argument in favour of Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
	There is just one point of concern that I would like to raise. It is very important that a Children's Commissioner is seen as an advocate for children and young people and is able to make strong representations on all issues that affect their lives. Clearly, the exchange of information is a very important part of that. I hope that a Children's Commissioner will take a great deal of interest in this because, as has been said, all services for children in future will continue to depend upon inter-agency co-operation and the free exchange of information across the agencies.
	My concern is the danger of implicating the commissioner in line accountability. It is very important that the commissioner's role as an advocate is strengthened as far as possible and is not compromised in any way by taking on a line accountability. It is very important that we have clarity of line accountability in these important matters. Therefore, the role of the Secretary of State in particular and the Government in general in making sure that the guidance applies consistently across all legislation should be followed with clear accountability to the Government. That is the only concern I want to express.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As noble Lords have indicated, this, in part, pre-empts a discussion that I know we will have on Clause 8, when I will be in extremist listening mode for all the reasons I have discussed with noble Lords outside the Chamber. I am looking forward to that debate because of the contributions that your Lordships will be making to it. So I would describe this not as a vexed issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, did, but an important issue.
	I agree with practically everything that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said so eloquently about the differences between the tools to facilitate the pen-and-paper opportunity that new technology can give us and the cultural changes. Much of the cultural change will take place beyond and outside the legislation. The noble Earl is right about the duty to co-operate being a fundamental part of that, but training, workforce issues, the development of people's skills and talents and ensuring the accountability framework rest, in many ways, beyond and outside the legislation. I would not want any noble Lord to feel that those were not critical issues, as the noble Earl indicated, for indeed they are. However, perhaps they do not all need to be handled within the framework of legislation.
	As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl indicated, the purpose behind the amendment is to give the commissioner responsibility for disseminating and drawing up the guidance to be issued around information-sharing.
	Of course we need to ensure that there is adequate guidance on information-sharing. The guidance will be going to many of our statutory bodies. We are clear that guidance to practitioners under Clauses 6 and 7 need to provide more clarity about the circumstances under which information may be shared to promote children's welfare, safety and well-being. There will of course needs to be comprehensive guidance on the operation of the databases which we propose to set up under Clause 8.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the implications that this has for the Children's Commissioner. I will say once more, although I know that noble Lords all agree, that the focus of the commissioner is on children—listening to children, representing children and hearing their views. His power comes from them and his focus must be on them. I, too, would worry about the implications of accountability if the commissioner were issuing guidance to statutory bodies such as the police, the Probation Service and social services. I do not believe that that is an appropriate role.
	As I said earlier, it is critical that we do not move away from the role that the Government and other agencies have to play. We must do our part. The recommendations of the Climbie inquiry and the work of the Children and Young People's unit vested in the Green Paper must be the responsibility of us all. This is the role of government. However, it is also a legitimate interest for the commissioner who well may have views and wish to give advice on the drawing up and dissemination of guidance, which he is permitted to do under Clause 2. Indeed, the Government may well consult the commissioner, especially about the preparation of guidance and its distribution.
	We have not yet appointed the commissioner, who may bring extremely valuable expertise and be able to assist us. There is nothing to stop the commissioner taking part in that discussion. I would expect that we would wish to discuss that with the commissioner, whose views will be welcome. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to specify such a duty in legislation. On that basis, I hope that Committee Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments and I look forward to discussions about Clause 8.

Baroness Barker: That has been a useful debate, not least because it has clarified for some of us the extent to which the commissioner can be involved in the process of determining how and what information is shared. The stark framework that is Clause 8 has set up any number of potential fears among those who have read it. Some of us feared that, as a result of Clause 8, professional shall speak unto professional and that the interests of children would not be properly taken into account. That was the rationale for trying to weave the commissioner more closely into the workings of the clause.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, says about accountability. I have followed the rest of the Committee's discussions on the 101 things for which the commissioner should be responsible. No doubt, when the commissioner is appointed, the exact extent to which he is involved in the setting of strategic guidance on a whole number of fronts will be a matter of urgency. This is one of the most important areas in which his or her involvement will be needed. Who but someone who will spend his entire time listening to the concerns of children would be better placed to know how children feel about professionals having information about them and how systems should therefore be drawn up and operated?
	These amendments have received as much support from the Government as I thought they would. None the less, this has been a useful and instructive discussion and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Inquiries held by Commissioner]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that a matter raises issues of general relevance to children, he may hold an enquiry into that matter."

Baroness Byford: I rise to move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who unfortunately cannot be with us this afternoon, and to speak also to Amendment No. 53.
	In Amendment No. 52, my noble friend is asking the Government whether the Children's Commissioner who considers the matter and raises issues of general guidance to children may hold an inquiry into that matter. However, as we have sat through rather prolonged debates already, I suspect that the answer is "no" unless he is directed by the Government. The Minister may tell me differently: I live in hope.
	Amendment No. 53 would leave out "direct" and insert "request". As currently worded, Clause 4(1), permits the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to undertake an enquiry into the case of an individual child. This is a fundamental violation of independence—as we have said earlier, and I have argued it until I am blue. I am wearing blue, so I shall still keep arguing.
	The commissioner must have the power to undertake formal investigations in exceptional circumstances. I repeat what I said earlier: this is not something we expect to happen on a daily basis, it will be exceptional. However, we believe—as has just been said in the previous amendments—that the independence of that commissioner is a key consideration. This is where the Government and ourselves, along with and other noble Lords around the Chamber, disagree.
	The commissioner should have these powers in exceptional circumstances. He or she should be equipped with the necessary tools, and also the right of access to documents, the power to enter institutions and to meet children in private, as well as the right to summon witnesses. The Bill currently gives the commissioner such powers only when she or he is carrying out an inquiry directed by the Secretary of State. It will be the Secretary of State and not the commissioner who determines the terms of reference for such an investigation. It will be the Secretary of State—again, not the commissioner—who determines if, when and how the report from such an inquiry will be published.
	Ministers have stated categorically that the commissioner will be an independent champion for children. I do not think I have repeated myself so much as I have today, but those of us who disagree with the Minister still do not think that he or she is an independent champion as the Bill currently stands. We believe it is difficult to reconcile the Government's stated aims for the commissioner with the reality of the Bill. We whole-heartedly agree that the commissioner must not be swamped with individual complaints. In my earlier amendment, I said I foresee everything going to the director locally, and not coming straight to the commissioner. Only in exceptional circumstances would it come to the commissioner because we do not want him to be swamped. We are all agreed on that.
	England's population of children is, as we have said, 11 million—significantly higher than other countries within the UK. Without safeguards, the potential is indeed here for the commissioner to lose her or his strategic role. These safeguards must be written into legislation, rather than handing over the decision-making powers to the Minister. The current provisions suggest that the Government do not believe the commissioner will act in the best interests of children without close ministerial supervision. The noble Baroness may say, "I am not sure", but she will have a chance to follow me. It is clear to those of us who have read the Bill that that is how we see it being interpreted and why we have had such a long late-morning and afternoon session on these very important issues.
	I understand that the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland said, in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 20 April, that she would not be able to maintain her position were she subject to such restrictions. That is actually quite a statement and I urge the Minister to consider it.
	Also, before I formally move these amendments, what contact has the Minister had with the Children's Rights Alliance? Has that organisation raised some of the concerns that I have raised this afternoon with her directly? If it has, and the matter has been taken further than I understand, then the Minister may be able to bring me up to date regarding pur original conversations.
	I cannot stress strongly enough our belief that the Children's Commissioner for England should be independent—though, clearly as the Minister stated earlier, I accept that he or she will only be used in exceptional circumstances. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I added my name to this amendment and shall just say a few brief words because I know my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill wants also to contribute. I absolutely concur with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said in moving this amendment, but I would add this question: What if the Children's Commissioner, when directed by the Secretary of State to conduct an inquiry, does not think that the issue is as important as the Secretary of State thinks it is? Perhaps because of other inquiries that the commissioner has made, he may take that view—or perhaps, given the enormous amount of time that such inquiries take, he or she may feel that he or she does not have the time or resources adequately to carry out such an inquiry. He or she may believe that the Secretary of State's reasons for directing him or her to conduct an inquiry were political or electoral in their nature, rather than in the best interests of children. Far be it from me to suggest that any Secretary of State of this Government might do any such thing, but we cannot say what might happen in future—and we are laying down legislation for the long term.
	I ask those questions of the Minister, and perhaps she will consider them when she responds.

Baroness Whitaker: In speaking to this group of amendments, I support Amendment No. 52 very warmly, as it is fundamental to the independence of the Children's Commissioner. It is in fact echoed by Amendment No. 17, which I moved earlier. I was reassured when, at col. 1059 of Tuesday's Hansard, my noble friend the Minister said:
	"As regards Amendment No. 17 . . . the commissioner will have the ability to review any issue that relates to the views and interests of children".—[Official Report, 4/5/04; col. 1059.]
	If the commissioner can review any issue of his own volition, surely by the same token he must be able to hold an inquiry into that matter.
	However, as regards Amendment No. 53, I believe that the Bill has got it right. It is quite normal in statutes that set up commissioners for the Secretary of State to have the power to direct. In a way, it is the counterpart of the commissioner having the independence to follow his own inquiry for the Secretary of State, who is the representative of the elected government, also to be able to direct the commissioner. There may be occasions when the commissioner's priorities need adjustment, and it would be right for the Government to retain the power to direct as long as the commissioner also has the right to conduct his own independent inquiry.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is just 30 years ago, almost to the day, since I left the Bar to work for a Labour Government in creating the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am delighted to say what I am about to say in the presence of the first—and for my money the best—deputy chair of the EOC, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote.
	I do not understand why the Government have got themselves into such a mess in this Bill, as I shall briefly explain in relation to Clause 4. When we set up the two commissions—the EOC and the CRE—we empowered each of them to carry out two kinds of inquiry. The first was a coercive inquiry that we called a "belief investigation", which meant that when the commission believed that a body had acted unlawfully, it could inquire into that and do nasty things by way of enforcement. We gave the commissions subpoena powers—the power to have access to information and to summon witnesses, all subject to judicial control and supervision. But we also empowered the commissions to carry out what were called "general investigations" into matters of public interest within the objects of the commissions—equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination. For that purpose, we did not give them subpoena powers unless the Secretary of State intervened to allow them to do so, because we were troubled about creating star chambers that could use their powers coercively.
	What we did not do was to hobble the two commissions as Clause 4 does. I simply do not understand why we are to have the weakest commissioner in the United Kingdom serving the children and young people of England. That baffles description. As we have debated already, Clause 4 places the commissioner entirely under the control of the Secretary of State in deciding whether he can carry out one of these inquiries at all. That seems wholly inappropriate and saps the independence of the commissioner.
	Secondly, the way in which the reports are handled—to which we shall come later—are, again, under the firm control of the Secretary of State. Thirdly, there is no free-standing power—the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with which I wholly agree—to carry out what I would call a general investigation not into anything under the sun, but a matter raising issues of general relevance to children. In carrying out that inquiry, please note that the way in which the Bill—this wretched Bill, I am sorry to say, in respect of its drafting—is drafted, it creates such a powerless and quasi-independent commissioner, weaker, as I said, than any of the others, that the only access to information is via the Local Government Act 1972, which again places the matter entirely under the Secretary of State's control.
	I have no particular objection to being careful about subpoena powers—I understand the need for that. But I cannot understand why the Children's Commissioner will not even—unless the Minister accepts the amendment, or something like it, as I hope she will—have the power to carry out a general investigation without any coercive powers or enforcement into matters of public interest affecting children. If the commissioner cannot even have that power, are we not disappointing all the expectations raised by the White Paper and the build-up to the Bill? So I hope that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so powerfully moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be acceptable to the Minister.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, because I have already—much less effectively, I may say, than the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—gone through the matter, but also because the whole situation has been so brilliantly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who I thank for his kind comments. However, this takes me back to another power that we had at the EOC. The great point is that the provision gave the commission, not the Secretary of State, power to back an individual case if it raised issues of relevance to the wider concerns of children.
	That point is not quite the same as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although I may be wrong. That was achieved by giving whatever support we could and, hopefully, getting others such as the TUC financially to back the case that we were pursuing. So I still consider the whole issue to be of enormous importance to independence and to the rights of children throughout the UK.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, this group of amendments raises questions that we have already had some opportunity to debate. I am mindful of the fact that noble Baroness is wearing blue and feels that she is talking blue; I notice that we on the Front Benches are all in blue; I also notice who is in the deepest blue, who may feel that she has said many things many times, but there we are. It is the nature of Front Benchers that we end up in the same costumes, in one guise or another.
	I agree with the compliments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, but because we disagree does not mean that the Bill is a mess or wretched in any way—it means that we disagree. Although the noble Lord may feel that it is a mess from his perspective, from my perspective it is absolutely clear and the distinctions are clear. I want to make that point because at the end, we all agree that we will appoint a children's commissioner and the descriptions that we give to that individual in our deliberations matter, because the individual must at some point take office with our wholehearted support. I read in the newspapers what we have already described the role as, and it is important that I make that point—on a personal level, I hasten to add.
	We have already discussed some of these arguments concerning the issues of individual cases. I have tried to be clear about the context that we want for the commissioner and the strategic role that we want him to play with the function of inquiry and associated powers only for those cases of wider import where the Secretary of State thinks that an inquiry is appropriate and looks to the commissioner to carry it out.
	As I have already said, there is an issue regarding the number of demands placed on the commissioner, and the focus that we have for him of listening to the views of children, being informed by what children say, and making sure that all services across a broad spectrum respond to children, looking at where they do not, and in those cases which in our view require the commissioner to look in greater detail at individual cases, having all the associated powers to do so. That is where the Government stand on this issue.
	However, there is a need for me to make that as clear as possible. I am always aware that when one stands at the Dispatch Box clarity sometimes may not be as great as it might otherwise be. I shall write formally to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as he quite rightly indicated from his great experience the differences between different commissions. We have time between now and other stages of the Bill to set out precisely Clause 2 and Clause 4 powers to inform our deliberations. If I do that, I am not saying that there will be an opportunity to bridge the disagreements but at least to be absolutely clear that we understand exactly our own positions.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would be very grateful to the Minister if she did that and copied the letter to everyone who has taken part in the debate. However, I ask respectfully if she would reflect on the following point. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are now discussing does not in any way suggest that the commissioner should be diverted into individual case work. Quite rightly in my view it refers to issues of general relevance to children, not individual cases at all. I should be very grateful for an answer to the following question. What is the issue of public policy in the Government's mind that makes it undesirable for this Children's Commissioner that we are setting up—who I entirely agree must be a person not put off by dismal propaganda beforehand—to take certain action? What is it that makes the Government fearful of the idea that the commissioner, with no coercive or enforcement powers at all, would be empowered to consider that,
	"a matter raises issues of general relevance to children",
	and to hold an inquiry into that matter? That is what I cannot understand.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope that that will be made clear in my correspondence. I shall be as clear as I can now. Under Clause 2, we have said that the commissioner can consider anything. The difference—I think this is the point that the noble Lord makes—is that the powers that we have indicated under Clause 4 are in place because we believe that those powers are essential to carry out individual investigations, or the kind of investigations that we believe are triggered by the Secretary of State. We make that distinction not through fear. We are not fearful of the commissioner; quite the contrary. We are trying to establish how we develop a commissioner's post that is focused on the outcomes identified by children, that is able to consider different systems and where he can talk to anyone and so on. That is a general area, if I may describe it as such.
	However, as regards specific investigations that might be undertaken—we have already indicated that the Victoria Climbie inquiry might well have been such an inquiry—further powers would be needed. The noble Lord may disagree with that distinction but I hope that it is clear in terms of what we are trying to do.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Baroness saying that the amendment is unnecessary because what has been put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is in fact covered by Clause 2?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is not for me to say whether the amendment is unnecessary. However, I believe that it creates a distinction that is different from the distinction that is in the Bill. I shall ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who I am pleased to see is present. I refer to the different distinction in the amendment. I shall try to explain that a little further.
	As I said, we seek to ensure that the way in which the commissioner operates adds value and is additional to all of the other systems and processes that we have in place and does not second-guess or become part of the process as opposed to being distinct from it. Under Clause 2 powers the commissioner can look across all the issues that we have described. When he becomes aware, from what he hears from children, for example, that a particular issue is of concern he can look into that issue. Clause 2(2)(d) specifically empowers him to,
	"consider or research any other matter relating to the interests of children".
	He can report on that either in the annual report or on an ad hoc basis, as he wishes. We believe that that is an effective function that flows from what the commissioner learns from discussions with children and young people. He can then look at it and report on it. We think that that is the right way to approach it. Because of the changes that Amendment No. 52 would make, we ask that it be withdrawn.
	Amendment No. 53 is a good opportunity for me to explain why Clause 4 gives the power to hold an inquiry when the Secretary of State directs. We expect that the commissioner will gain invaluable experience and expertise in talking to children and in gathering their views, which will be very important. If an inquiry is to be made into a matter affecting children, it is vital that the experience and expertise of the commissioner is brought to bear in the most appropriate way for the best possible resolution of that inquiry. That will not always mean that the commissioner undertakes the inquiry himself. There may sadly be a need for more inquiries than the commissioner could reasonably be expected to handle. Others undertaking inquiries on behalf of the Secretary of State might well call the commissioner to give evidence, based on what he has learnt through the exercise of his function. When the Secretary of State believes that the commissioner is the right person to undertake an inquiry, we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to direct the commissioner so to do. In our earlier discussions I have indicated that we would provide the funding for such an inquiry. Of course, it would be appropriate that the Secretary of State must take into account other pressures on the commissioner. That is the rationale behind that. On that basis, I trust that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 53.

Lord Lucas: If I may rise now, I really must try not being here to move my amendments more often. Clearly, it has been advocated with great force by my noble friend Lady Byford who has quite rightly received compliments from all sides of the Committee. I look forward to reading the letter with great interest. I remain unconvinced, but the letter has it so far as I am concerned.

Baroness Byford: I think that I shall be out of order again if I do not rise to speak right now. I am trying to be in order. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Whitaker, for their contributions. I remember sitting through the debate on Amendment No. 17 on Tuesday. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for speaking on this important amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose authority I could not start to achieve but which I respect enormously.
	I should like to ask four questions before my noble friend decides whether to withdraw the amendment. I asked the Minister to comment on the meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at which the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland said in evidence that she would not be able to maintain her position were she subject to such restrictions. It is important that this point is not lost. Have I missed it?

Baroness Andrews: I feel that the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to make such points in her speech. To come back with detailed points may not be in order. I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I am advised that it is Committee stage and that in fact the noble Baroness is in order.

Baroness Byford: That is why I rose to speak rather quickly because I think that earlier on I was out of order and I am becoming more terrified as the minutes pass. The noble Baronesses on the other side of the Chamber are very nice but it is off-putting when one thinks one is in order and then one is told that one is not.
	I therefore ask the Minister for a reply to that comment, which was made in all sincerity, and to answer my question about what contact she has had with the Children's Rights Alliance and what response she has had to that. I also draw the Minister's attention to her response to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on Clause 2(2)(d). She seemed to imply that that referred also to an inquiry. The provision refers to the consideration or research of,
	"any other matter relating to the interests of children".
	It does not refer to an inquiry at all. I should be grateful for clarification as the point is not clear.
	I have tried to be very non-party political as I think that that is in the interests of all of us. The Children Bill is hugely important. However, I must say to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that I feel very disappointed. If we cannot achieve consensus as the Bill progresses, it will be yet another example of a Government who say that we should devolve matters down, as has happened in local government, and yet want to hold on to control at the centre. This is another very clear example of that.
	The Bill has raised huge hopes outside; people are looking to it to achieve an awful lot. Yet, in the first instance, it has been another example of Labour raising your hopes but letting you down.

Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister responds, will she also reflect on my comments on this group of amendments and tell us how the Government would respond should the Secretary of State direct such an inquiry, but should the commissioner feel that he or she did not have either the time or resources to carry it out?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will.
	I was very supportive of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, standing up to correct me because I had not answered her questions, but I rather lost enthusiasm as her comments developed. It is never my intention to let anyone down. If she is disappointed that I am not able to take on her comments, she should see it from my end of the telescope. I am quite clear about what we are trying to achieve. I know that noble Lords' comments are always made within the framework of seeking the most appropriate way of delivering a children's commissioner. I put our disagreements in that context. However, it is never my intention as a Minister or as a proud member of the Labour Party to disappoint anyone.
	The noble Baroness asked me about the comments of the Scottish commissioner. I had the privilege of meeting her just before she started her role. I have not read her submission but I will of course do so. She is inevitably very new in that role, which she looks at from a very clear perspective. I found her contribution to the all-party group extremely enlightening and very interesting. I am not sure whether I will agree with her comments, but I take nothing away from her abilities, which have been demonstrated to me. I wish her every success in her new role. I am not sure that she is able now to say what will eventually evolve for her. However, I will look at the comments and write to the noble Baroness if I can elucidate further.
	I have met the Children's Rights Alliance with my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge on at least one occasion. I have met many different organisations during the course of the Bill. I am not sure that I met the alliance per se but I have certainly met many organisations that are a part of the alliance. Those very important organisations have at heart good wishes for children and the desire to support them. Our discussions are therefore extremely positive. It is not that we do not admire and respect those organisations; it is just that we sometimes do not agree with their conclusions. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree with that.
	On paragraph (b), the difference is a general inquiry. The wording implies, and it is correct, that the commissioner could hold a general inquiry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will not disagree that the difference is that the inquiry under Clause 4 brings with it particular powers that are not invested in Clause 2. However, to inquire across systems and about the issues which children raise is absolutely within Clause 2. I hope to establish that clarification properly in correspondence. It is an important distinction.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly said that I had not answered her question. It is for the Secretary of State to provide the resources to the commissioner for the inquiry. There is no question about that.
	I am not sure that it would reach the point of disagreement, because although the relationship needs to be robust between the independent commissioner and the Government, it must also be the case that the commissioner and the Secretary of State have such a relationship that they would discuss the inquiry. My view is that when such inquiries arise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said—they should be a process of looking at what more needs to be done. Big inquiries are not undertaken lightly or unless it is absolutely clear that that is the most appropriate way to go forward to achieve the best possible results in order to support children now and in the future. I imagine that the dialogue on this issue will continue, but I will reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall, if he gives such a direction, provide the Children's Commissioner with sufficient additional resources to complete the enquiry."

Lord Lucas: I have already had an answer to my concerns on this matter, but I move the amendment for the sake of the rest of the group. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 64 and 131 in this group.
	There are two purposes to Amendment No. 64, which is a probing amendment. The first is to give the Minister an opportunity to confirm that, under the current wording in the Bill, local government will pay for the cost of inquiries, rather than, as my amendment suggests, the Children's Commissioner and the Secretary of State. The second purpose is to find out whether the Minister envisages more inquires. Currently there are one or two major inquiries a year into child deaths and child abuse. The remit in Clause 4(1) is wider. Inquiries can be held when an individual case raises issues of relevance to other children.
	So, does the Minister expect more inquiries to be held across a much wider range of subjects? For example, could an inquiry be held into the reasons for the exclusion of a pupil or a group of pupils from school? The Independent newspaper estimated in an editorial last Thursday, 29 April, that there have been no fewer than 70 public inquiries into child deaths since the end of the Second World War. There are concerns about the mounting costs of inquiries. Clearly, no one is expecting something on the scale of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Inquiries should be short, specific and achieve results in order to affect practice in as short a time as possible. Can the Minister enlighten us a little about, for example, the scope? An inquiry could be called if issues about an individual child raised issues of relevance to other children. Is it likely that inquiries will fall outside the relatively discrete area of inquiries into child deaths in care, which has been the main reason for such inquiries until now?
	What about frequency? How many inquiries each year does the Minister envisage? What does the Minister think that they will cost? Does the Minister envisage that local government will pay for such inquiries? If the costs fall significantly on a single local authority, even though the issues relate to children all over the country, will the Secretary of State meet part of the cost?
	Amendment No. 131 has appeared in the wrong place in the Marshalled List and relates not to Clause 7, but to paragraph 7 of Schedule 1. It should really have been debated when we debated Schedule 1, because noble Lords will see that it is part of the debate that we had the other day when I was promoting the idea that the Children's Commissioner should be appointed not by the Secretary of State, but by Her Majesty the Queen, on the recommendation of Parliament. The amendment falls perfectly in line with that suggestion. If Parliament is to appoint the commissioner, the payment should also come from it.
	If the Minister was puzzled by the mistaken thought that I wished to delete Clause 7 entirely, I hope that I have clarified the situation. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the light of that explanation. It would add to the independence of the Children's Commissioner from the executive, which I advocated a few days ago. In the light of our debate on Tuesday, I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 131, which also stands in my name. I commend to the Committee the 11th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Commission for Equality and Human Rights: Structure, Functions and Powers, which was published yesterday. It deals in some detail with independence and accountability, starting at paragraph 108. The Joint Committee looked first at the traditional non-departmental public body model and alternative models. I shall not bore the Committee by going through that. It then looked at the need for independence, including independent funding, of the proposed new commission.
	One of my concerns is the possibility that the Children Bill would become a precedent for what would happen with the much wider and more powerful commission for equality and human rights. That relates as much to independence of funding as to anything else. The White Paper on the new commission is due out next month. I do not suggest that the Minister will know anything about it at this stage. At paragraph 126 of its 11th report the Joint Committee highlighted the need for a system of funding independent of direct ministerial control. It then suggested the relationship with Parliament. Paragraph 130, which deals with the commission not the commissioner, recommends:
	"The commission should be funded by moneys voted by the House of Commons directly, not through the voted expenditure of a ministerial department. The adequate funding of the commission, having regard to the need for efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the use of its resources, will of course be essential to guarantee its independence. It will require more funding than the combined budgets of the existing commissions".
	That is part of an important general section on the points raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley—the appointment and accountability of the commissioner. The funding is part and parcel of all of that in Schedule 1.
	Our amendment, which was tabled before the report was published, would achieve a system of funding that would enhance the independence of the commissioner by making it a matter for the House of Commons rather than for the Secretary of State.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As Members of the Committee have made clear, the amendment is about resources. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his comments. The answer to his question is "Yes", which is probably the speediest and most helpful response that I have given today.
	The Government intend to meet the cost of inquiries undertaken by the commissioner under Clause 4. We recognise that the cost of some inquiries could be substantial, therefore we would want to ensure that we fund them in addition to providing core funding.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether I thought that there would be more inquiries, how many there would be, and at what cost. The great tragedy is that we hold inquiries when things go terribly wrong. It is our ambition, through the Bill and much of the work of the Green Paper, that the kind of inquiries that we have seen over the past 30 or more years will become unnecessary because children will no longer be in such circumstances. I cannot predict the future. I hope that the kind of inquiries that we find ourselves conducting under Clause 4 will be of great import but will not be based around tragedy for children. So I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, an indication of what costs there would be. I do not expect she is surprised. These inquiries can be incredibly important, not only in getting to the bottom of the individual issues, but also in terms of learning the lessons. We would want to ensure those were taken on board where that was important.
	Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to make payments, and this would include paying for inquiries as well as routine grant payment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would expect. Earlier in this debate, questions were raised about some of the wording in Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, and I did agree to consider the points raised in that part of the debate. However the precise wording emerges, our commitment to the principle of meeting the cost of inquiries will stand.
	I am grateful for the clarification of Amendment No. 131. Indeed, the note that I have simply says that it would mean that payments were made by Parliament rather than the Secretary of State. So it stands on its own perfectly well in that context. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said. I sense that my weekend reading has arrived in the shape of the report, which, with the Higher Education Bill next week, is a pity. I think my weekend may have just disappeared.
	I will reflect on what is said in the report, and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quite rightly indicates, there is a need to look very carefully at what is being suggested.
	I have already undertaken to look at the issues of funding. I will look at what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has very kindly drawn to my attention. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) A report made under subsection (3) shall set out—
	(a) the findings and conclusions of the Children's Commissioner; and
	(b) any recommendations made by the Children's Commissioner."

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58, which also stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
	I can deal with Amendment No. 55 very quickly, because it is banal. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me it is wholly unnecessary because it falls within the general powers of the Children's Commissioner in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which tells us that the commissioner,
	"may do anything which appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of his functions".
	That is the general, incidental power which one finds in all statutes. All that Amendment No. 55 seeks to do, for the avoidance of doubt, is to mirror Clause 13(3)b of the Children's Commissioner for Wales regulations, empowering the Children's Commissioner to set out her or his findings, conclusions and recommendations in the report. I would be surprised if that did not fall within the general powers, and we would seek assurance in that respect. If it does not, express words will be needed.
	While talking about express words, may I become an old fogey and say that I hope that, before the Bill leaves this House, the grammar might be improved. In Clause 2, for example, I did not know that there was a verb called "to research" in the way that it is used there; namely, "to consider or research". I thought it was "to conduct research", but I may be wrong.
	Amendment No. 58 is more substantial. If the Secretary of State directs the commissioner to hold any inquiry, then a report of that inquiry must be sent to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. In the Bill, it is proposed that the Secretary of State may then edit the report to conceal the identities of children or withhold it from publication. The relevant provisions are in Clause 4(3) to (6). That is at odds with the position of the Children's Commissioners for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, who are treated as grown-ups capable of censoring their own reports. The responsibility rests with those commissioners. Exactly the same is true of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, which are under a statutory obligation only to publish reports—the nasty, coercive ones or the general ones—subject to questions of, among other things, personal privacy.
	Everyone agrees that we need safeguards for personal privacy, especially where children are concerned. Amendment No. 58 would change the position by inserting a new subsection (5) that would remove the power from the Secretary of State and place it with the Children's Commissioner. That is a read-across from Clause 13 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003. Essentially, I want to know why the English commissioner should not have the same power and the same responsibility as the Scottish commissioner. It seems heavy-handed to say not only that the Secretary of State should direct that there be an inquiry but that, when the report is made, the Secretary of State will have responsibility for censorship of the report—the word "censorship" is correctly used here—instead of leaving it to the commissioner.
	Somebody asked about safeguards. Obviously, the Children's Commissioner, if given the responsibility, would have to be careful to respect personal privacy. The Children's Commissioner will be subject to, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, as a public authority. The commissioner will have to have regard to a child's right to respect for private life. We now know that the commissioner must have regard to the children's rights convention. There will need to be a lawyer at the shoulder of the Children's Commissioner, if the amendment is made, just as there will need to be a lawyer at the shoulder of the Secretary of State, if the power of censorship rests with the Secretary of State. Just like the Secretary of State, the commissioner would have to make sure that the power was not abused.
	Given that the Local Government Act controls what I call "subpoena powers"—that is, all under the Secretary of State and, ultimately, the courts—and given that there will be adequate safeguards if the Children's Commissioner gets it wrong, I do not see why we cannot give the Children's Commissioner for England the same responsibility as we give those in the other parts of the United Kingdom. That is another aspect of unnecessary central government control over an independent commissioner. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: I have a clutch of amendments in the group. Amendment No. 56 would insert the word "promptly". I think that the objective of that amendment is clear.
	Amendment No. 57 would leave out the words,
	"in such a manner as he thinks fit".
	The Secretary of State might, for instance, place a report in the Library of the House without telling anybody. That has been done before. There should be a duty to publish properly. Perhaps it is implicit, but I would be grateful for some comfort on that.
	Amendment No. 59 addresses one of the subjects touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I share his discomfort that it should be the Secretary of State who censors these things. It is not proper that the Secretary of State should be able to say that he will not publish a report because a certain paragraph mentions an individual child's name or because something might be inferred from it about an individual child. I really think that it has got to be someone else, particularly since it might be a report that is critical of the Secretary of State, his officials or other members of the Government. To give the Secretary of State carte blanche to censor in an unrestricted way, which is the way the Bill runs at the moment, I find uncomfortable. I have suggested the High Court. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I share his views that it should be the commissioner who has to make sure that children are properly protected by the contents of the report.
	Amendment No. 60 is a corollary of that. If the Secretary of State is to censor the report, it has to be clear that, in doing so, he is restricted to the minimum necessary in order to protect the identity of a child. This very much looks at the sort of procedure that is supposed to come in under the Freedom of Information Act, and so forth. Again, if this was the duty of the commissioner rather than the duty of the Secretary of State, I would feel much less strongly about it. Amendment No. 61 just follows on from Amendment No. 59.
	Perhaps I may add an apology that I shall depart at six o'clock. I have two further amendments. If the Minister chooses to reply to them in their grouping, I may not move them when I come to them in their place. I think that I am fairly safe in saying that we shall not reach Amendment No. 247A today. It may be that Amendment No. 109A drops, but there we are. I leave them at the disposal of the Committee. But the noble Baroness does not need to feel that she should not reply to them just because I am not there. That may save her time later.

Baroness Byford: I shall speak to Amendment No. 57 in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas who, clearly, has explained his discomfort at this wording being in the Bill, and to Amendment No. 62. This Bill, as do so many others over the past five years, gives enormous unsupervised power to the Secretary of State to act through regulation and guidance. The report to which this section refers will be prepared by the commissioner. Giving the duty of publication to the Secretary of State may perhaps be regarded as courtesy. Such publication should be full and complete and not subject to further secretarial discretion.
	As technology moves on, it may be that publication involves more than publication in a hard or soft-back booklet. But whatever the medium in vogue, the report should be made available to everyone who wishes to access it. I think that that is something that my noble friend has spelt out clearly.
	Amendment No. 62 would protect the commissioner in his ability to do his work properly. The Children's Commissioner, given an investigation by the Secretary of State, will be required to gather information, collate it, analyse it and, from his analysis, draw conclusions on what happened and why. It is wholly possible and quite likely that in some, if not all, of his reports, he may have to criticise people—for example, services providers, professionals, parents, family and other friends—as my noble friend has just described. It could be a whole variety of people or organisations.
	In many cases, this criticism will be couched in terms that reveal the identity of those involved, whether directly or indirectly. It may be that they will consider the criticism is harsh or even unjust. Others may use the criticism to remove or downgrade individuals from their position. It would surely be wrong in such circumstances for there to be any way in which such an individual could go to the court in pursuit of reparation.
	By putting this simple amendment in the Bill, we hope to ensure that the Children's Commissioner can carry out his duties free of the possibility, however remote, that he may have to expend precious time defending himself against a law suit. I think that this is an important addition to the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is an interesting group of amendments covering a range of issues about the publication of reports of inquiries held under the terms of Clause 4. Our approach here is very straightforward. The Secretary of State would direct the commissioner to conduct an inquiry; the commissioner would hold the inquiry and write the report—its contents are for the commissioner and no one else to decide; and the Secretary of State may make a decision on one significant point; that is, whether a child's identity needs to be protected. The Secretary of State would then publish the report unless it is impossible to do so without disclosing the child's identity and the Secretary of State thinks that that would not be in the best interests of the child.
	There is no unrestricted power of censorship. The Bill does not give a power to the Secretary of State to censor a formal inquiry report. He can amend it only in the circumstances that I have indicated. That is an important point to bear in mind.
	Amendment No. 55, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, specifies certain points that should be contained within any report made under this clause. I have no problem with the principle behind this amendment. One would expect the report of an inquiry, other than in exceptional circumstances, to contain conclusions and recommendations. The noble Lord went on to ask why this was not a reflection of what happened with the Welsh commissioner. I cannot answer that question at this moment, but I shall write to the noble Lord. We think that the provisions are necessary because it is what we would expect to happen in any event. So this is not in any way an attempt not to reflect what was said about the Welsh commissioner; it is simply that we assumed that that would be a part and parcel of the provision. While what I have said may be sufficient, I shall look at it again.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated that Amendment No. 56 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish "promptly" any inquiry report produced by the commissioner. We envisage that the Secretary of State would respond in a prompt manner to any report produced by the commissioner. There has never been any intention to allow the Secretary of State to delay publication, especially for a political reason.
	However, there may be sound reasons for minor delays that I want to outline for noble Lords. The Secretary of State will have to consider whether there are grounds to exercise his powers under subsection (5) to protect a child's identity. He may wish to take advice, not least from the child or the family, on that question. Alternatively, the Secretary of State may feel that where a report alleges criminal activity by a named person or persons, it would be necessary to liaise with the police or other authorities to check whether the alleged offender is working with children, to prevent the person absconding or to protect that person from reprisals.
	I am sure that noble Lords will agree that those are valid reasons not to publish the report immediately, all of which would be discussed with the commissioner. But I agree completely that the Secretary of State should not delay the publication of a report because he disagreed with its conclusions. I am sure that the Secretary of State would be called to account by Parliament in another place and, I am sure, noble Lords would ask questions in this House. I hope that those reassurances are sufficient, but I understand the sentiments that lie behind the amendment. I shall take advice and see whether anything more can be done in the spirit of my remarks. I recognise what noble Lords are looking for here. Without commitment at this point, I will look at the matter again.
	I turn to Amendment No. 57, also moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I welcome the opportunity this amendment provides for me to explain a little further our thinking here. The wording of this clause was designed to confirm the flexibility afforded the Secretary of State in exactly how to publish a report. It could be in the form of a book available from the Stationery Office, a government publication on-line or a combination of those. It would allow flexibility on the issue of whether and how to produce a version aimed at children and young people. That is why the subsection has been worded in this way. It has not been written with the intention of allowing the Secretary of State to publish a report in an obscure fashion so that it could be hidden. Moreover, obviously there is no intention that it should be edited other than within the powers exercised under this subsection.
	I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel that the amendment is unnecessary and I invite him to withdraw it. However, again I understand the implications behind the proposal and I shall see whether we can say something firmer on this matter. That may not necessarily be a form of words on the face of the Bill, but I may return with words that will reassure the noble Lord more clearly than I am able in my contribution this afternoon.
	Amendment No. 58 would have two main effects, the first of which is the transfer of responsibility from the Secretary of State to the Commissioner for decisions about the disclosure of the identity of a child or children.
	I think that we are all agreed that this is a significant consideration in the publication of a report. It is our view that it is the Secretary of State who should make that decision. Based on the general approach that we have taken to this clause, it is the Secretary of State who orders the inquiry and publishes the report. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should take the decision. We would expect the Secretary of State to take advice, including from the commissioner, before making such a decision.
	I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about "a lawyer at their shoulder". I reiterate what I have said about the focus of the commissioner being on children, on the interests of children and on talking to children and representing their views. I would rather that the Secretary of State, who already has a lawyer at their shoulder, has that role in this context.
	We have also said that the commissioner may publish other reports: an annual report and other ad hoc reports. In those circumstances, the question of individual identity does not arise.
	The second effect of the amendment would be to set out when the commissioner may or may not disclose information that he has obtained through a formal investigation. We do not believe that these restrictions are necessary. As presently conceived, the only power of formal investigation is set out in Clause 4. We therefore do not believe that is an issue which will arise. However, I recognise the complexity of some of the issues raised. I will reflect appropriately on that and return to your Lordship's House, either in writing or, if I feel that there is something further to be done, by amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister goes on to the other amendments, could I ask whether she would reflect further on Amendment No. 58?
	Part of it comes from the Northern Ireland model and part of it comes from the Scottish model. Am I right in saying that the Children's Commissioner is a public authority which must respect personal privacy regardless of the Secretary of State, as well as natural justice; that the Children's Commissioner will need to take legal advice, just as much as the Secretary of State will; and that, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Commissioners are given that responsibility to protect personal privacy without the Secretary of State having to do so? The safeguards that we have built in are there precisely to comply with human rights: to make absolutely sure that the coercive powers of the commissioner will not be abused.
	What we would be asking on Report, if possible in writing beforehand, is exactly why it is not possible, with all these safeguards from Scotland and Northern Ireland, to give that responsibility to the Children's Commissioner. I think that is what we are searching for.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I can certainly reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said. However, we are back in the territory of the differences in the way in which we perceive the commissioner and the commissioner's role—Clauses 2 and 4 in terms of their responsibilities.
	I will reflect, however, on what the noble Lord has said regarding human rights and on ensuring personal privacy. I have indicated that, because we anticipate that the issue of personal privacy, ensuring that names are not revealed and so on, are very much part of the Clause 4 inquiry, it would rest with the Secretary of State and the legal advice.
	The noble Lord is asking me to do two things: to reflect on that in itself, which I would say is not something we would wish to change, and also the broader question regarding the role of the commissioner and the matter of human rights. I will certainly ensure that we reflect on that, because it is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that.
	Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. These would transfer from the Secretary of State to the High Court the power to make decisions about whether a child's identity should be disclosed.
	In a sense, we are rehearsing part of an argument that we have already had. We believe that it is in keeping with the rest of what we are trying to do. This role should fall to the Secretary of State, as the person ordering the inquiry and publishing the inquiry, in dialogue and conversation with a number of those involved, not least the commissioner—from whom we would expect the Secretary of State to take advice.
	In extreme cases, those who felt it appropriate to seek judicial review would have the right to do so if they thought the Secretary of State was acting unreasonably, either by disclosure or by non-disclosure, by withholding the report. As I said, I would also expect Parliament to seek an understanding from the Secretary of State if a report was withheld, for it would surely be known that an investigation had been undertaken by the commissioner.
	Amendment No. 60 specifies that the Secretary of State can amend a report only in so far as it is necessary to do so in order to protect the identity of the child. I am happy to clarify that the commissioner's report would be independent. It is not the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should alter or amend any of the commissioner's reports except to protect the identity of a child.
	My advice is that the amendment is not necessary. As subsection (5)(a) is subordinate to subsection (5) itself, there is a clear inference, we believe, that this is the only way in which the Secretary of State may amend a report. I hope that with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
	Finally, Amendment No. 62 would protect the commissioner from legal action under the law of defamation. This is an important point: we expect the commissioner to produce fair and accurate reports and to be mindful of the need not to include statements that could be unjustifiably damaging to an individual or group of individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, we anticipate that the commissioner will employ or have ready access to a legal adviser to avoid such occurrences. This is all the more important, given the strong emotions that are aroused by children's welfare, especially if actual or suspected abuse is involved.
	The Government consider that the commissioner must be free to carry out his duties and help to protect children without being constrained by a constant fear of litigation. I will be happy to review whether legislation is needed to give the commissioner appropriate legal protection. I will consider this in more detail before Report. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said on my amendments. So far as the earlier two are concerned, I will mull over whether I can come back with a constructive amendment and hope that she does better than me in the same endeavour. As far as the next two are concerned, I shall not pursue that line and will take an interest in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, does about his amendment.
	On Amendment No. 61, will the noble Baroness consider tweaking the wording of subsection (5) so that it comes more into line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000? I would expect there to be a duty to amend and publish if possible, which is what the Act provides. If you can, by deleting or amending, make something publishable, that is what you have to do. At the moment, it is not clear; the alternatives are that you can amend it or you cannot publish it. I would like it to be clear that you have to amend if you can, and it is only if you cannot that you cannot publish.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My advice is clear but I will of course look again at that point if the noble Lord feels that still more clarification is needed. I will write to him and pursue this if I think we have not made that clear.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am satisfied with the Minister's answer that Amendment No. 55 is not necessary because the Government accept that what is sought is implied. It is for the Government to decide whether to make that quite clear on the face of the Bill. The Minister has already indicated that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 56 to 66 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 67:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION FOR PURPOSES OF FORMAL INVESTIGATION
	(1) Where the Children's Commissioner considers it is necessary and expedient to do so for the proper conduct of a formal investigation, he may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises in which—
	(a) a child is living or being looked after;
	(b) a child is being detained under any statutory provision;
	(c) education, health, welfare or other services are provided for children; or
	(d) the Commissioner believes a child is, or may be, employed or receiving training.
	(2) On entering any premises under this section, the Children's Commissioner may—
	(a) make any examination into the state and management of the premises and the treatment of children there which he thinks appropriate;
	(b) subject to subsection (3), inspect and take copies of any documents or records which are required by any statutory provision to be kept there;
	(c) subject to subsections (4) to (6), interview in private any child present on the premises;
	(d) interview in private any other person present on the premises who is employed there (whether the employment is paid or unpaid or under a contract or otherwise).
	(3) The Children's Commissioner shall not exercise his power under subsection (2)(b) unless he considers it necessary to do so for the proper conduct of an investigation.
	(4) Before exercising the power conferred by subsection (2)(c) in relation to any child, the Children's Commissioner shall inform the parent of the child—
	(a) of his intention to interview the child; and
	(b) of the parent's right under subsection (6);
	and shall supply the parent with sufficient information to enable him to exercise that right.
	(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if in the Children's Commissioner's opinion—
	(a) it would not be in the interests of the child to inform the parent in accordance with that subsection; or
	(b) it would not in the circumstances be practicable to do so.
	(6) The parent of the child has the right to be present at any interview conducted under subsection (2)(c) unless—
	(a) in the Children's Commissioner's opinion—
	(i) it would not be in the interests of the child for his parent to be present; or
	(ii) it is in the circumstances not practicable for the parent to be present; or
	(b) the child objects to the parent being present and, in the Commissioner's opinion, that objection is reasonable (regard being had in particular to the age and understanding of the child).
	(7) Where the Children's Commissioner proposes to exercise the power of entry conferred by this section he shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to exercise the power.
	(8) Nothing in this section authorises the Children's Commissioner to enter any premises (or any part of any premises) used wholly or mainly as a private dwelling."

Baroness Byford: First, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take the previous amendment away.
	In moving Amendment No. 67, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 68 as well. Both amendments deal with very important issues. The first deals with powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of formal investigation, and the second deals with further action following the report of a formal investigation.
	It is hard to think of the Children's Commissioner being refused entry to any place that is not a private dwelling where children are looked after or educated. However, it is the duty of this House to think the unthinkable and to ensure that Bills leave here with as few built-in loopholes as possible. In cases when an institution is being investigated, either on its own or as part of something wider, it is entirely possible that those in charge may wish to delay matters until, for example, the paperwork has been brought up to date. If the Children's Commissioner has no express right of entry—to his timetable—a delay may be inevitable, if only to clear his credentials.
	Earlier today, I referred to a meeting that I had with the disabled group yesterday. One issue that was particularly raised was the important one of being able to give evidence or seek advice in privacy. The particular claues that we are dealing with are hugely important. In the case of an establishment that may be employing or training a child, the right of entry must be defined. Many small businesses are run by people with little knowledge of the law and no means of instant access to it. A school, for example, can ring up the legal department at the county or metropolitan county and obtain swift directions. A plumber with four adult staff and an apprentice will rarely have recourse to such a speedy response. If the rule is included in the Bill, it can be demonstrated on the spot and possibly cross-checked very easily through a body such as the Citizens Advice Bureau.
	The Children's Commissioner's rights once he is on the premises must be carefully circumscribed, but they should give him reasonable access to the place itself, its management, its record systems, the people who work there and any children who attend there in any capacity. I believe that this amendment satisfies all those conditions. The Disability Rights Commission supports the aim of this amendment to give the commissioner essential powers of entry to an establishment and the ability to interview children and young people in private, on which I touched earlier.
	On Amendment No. 68, the main reason for having a Children's Commissioner is to give children their own champion—a person who is on their side, good, bad or ugly enough to ensure that everybody else is also on their side. It is extremely important. There may be difficulties, but such a person will listen to them.
	Travelling around the country from time to time as I do, I often listen to Radio 4. Recently, there were a mass of most unlikely but at the same time informative programmes. Through some of them I have become uneasily aware that almost ever since the end of the First World War, authorities of various kinds have acted on behalf of children in ways that, sadly, should not have happened then and that would not now be tolerated. This clause may never have to be invoked—I sincerely hope that it is not. However, not to include it in the Bill—I will listen to the Minister's response with interest—would run an unacceptable risk that further cover-ups may happen. We do not want that to happen, especially in our dealings with children. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I added my name to both these amendments. Amendment No. 67 is a critical test of the commissioner's independence and of his or her capacity to safeguard the most vulnerable children. For the post to be effective, the commissioner must have the power to initiate contact with children and meet them in private. Without it, authorities would be able to refuse access to institutions and to individual children, perhaps under some of the circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
	While we would expect that most institutions will understand the role of the commissioner—and support it and co-operate with him or her—this power is necessary as a symbol of the commissioner's independence and singular allegiance with children and as a safeguard to protect children from those who would seek to keep them away from the commissioner. The amendments set out the process the commissioner must follow when seeking to interview children in private, clearly stating the need for parental consent and involvement unless it is not in the best interests of the child.
	Children's developmental state makes them uniquely vulnerable. They are more susceptible than adults to coercion and intimidation. We know from past enquiries into abuse in residential care that abused and mistreated children can remain silent for months and years because they do not have the knowledge, confidence or opportunity to make contact with someone outside the institution in which they find themselves. The practical barriers preventing children seeking help themselves can be huge and impenetrable, especially for younger children, disabled children and children in custodial settings.
	It is under the circumstances where the Children's Commissioner believes that there is an abuse of the system— something going wrong for children in general—that he or she would want to enter institutions where children are held. Some of the lobby groups have asked for even further powers of entry than are in this amendment. I believe that under the circumstances where the commissioner has reason to believe that immediate intervention is required because an offence may be about to be committed, the commissioner would actually work with the police. Therefore, that sort of power is not necessary. I would certainly anticipate a very close collaboration between the commissioner and the police under those circumstances.
	Amendment No. 68 is very important in terms of making sure that the commissioner's work is effective and that something actually happens as a result of what he or she has to say. It is not enough for the Government to claim that an effective commissioner will be able to elicit a response from a relevant body. On the other hand, it is relying too much on the good will of bodies subject to a formal investigation to expect them always to provide a timely, serious and considered response to the commissioner's recommendations. In difficult circumstances, the pressures on bodies to ignore, stall or dismiss out of hand the commissioner's recommendations will be immense.
	If the Government want and expect bodies to respond to recommendations arising from formal investigations undertaken by the commissioner, then this amendment should be in the Bill. Without this provision, from the start the commissioner will have a serious credibility problem, and will be impotent to act if his or her recommendations are met with silence or a half-hearted and derisory response. To refer to mixed metaphors that we used on Tuesday, the commissioner would be a set of ears without any teeth.
	We really do need both Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 in order to ensure the commissioner has the powers that he or she will need.

Baroness David: I should like strongly to support the need for the commissioner to have a right of access to any institutional premises where children are. However, the powers should not be limited, as it is in Amendment No. 67, to the context of formal investigations. As I said in the earlier debate on investigations, we are all agreed that formal investigations, which inevitably take a lot of the commissioner's resources, should be rare.
	Similarly, we would not expect the commissioner to use this power of entry often, and there could be strict criteria for its use. However, we know the terrible abuse suffered by very many children in all kinds of institutions, and how it has persisted despite a whole range of safeguards, inspectors and so on. We also know that child labour persists despite other safeguards under employment legislation. The commissioner is not there to duplicate other services, but he is there to go in when others seem to failing children. As an independent watchdog for children, the commissioner needs to be seen to have exceptional powers to enter, to see relevant documents and to interview children in private, just as he or she needs the power to take or intervene in legal proceedings.
	The commissioner in Northern Ireland has those powers and there is just as much need for it in England. An unannounced visit by the commissioner on the basis of a call from a child who finds that his pleas for help are not being listened to or is threatened with reprisals, or on the basis of a call from a whistle-blowing member of staff, could lead to all sorts of necessary action. The commissioner needs to be able to do that without the rigmarole of establishing a formal investigation.
	The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 68, on "Further action following report" is also essential, as it requires relevant bodies to respond to the commissioner's recommendations following an investigation. I emphasise again, as I did earlier, that commissioners cannot constitutionally be given powers to overturn the decisions of Ministers or departments, but there needs to be a formal requirement to take the commissioner's recommendations seriously and to respond and explain why if they are not being accepted.
	I was of course delighted that the Government conceded with such grace on Tuesday that the commissioner must have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Pursuing the logic of that concession should lead to a revised general function parallel to that of the other commissioners and the addition of these and other powers to give the commissioner the necessary authority and status to promote and defend children's human rights.
	The debate so far has suggested universal praise for the Government's introduction of the Children's Commissioner but also very strong support from all sides and corners of the House for full independence and real powers, reflected today in a strong editorial from the Guardian, which I dare say that other Members of the Committee have read as well.

Baroness Whitaker: I rise to support Amendment No. 67. The commissioner really needs those powers to get to the truth. There could be resistance; it is understandable for institutions to protect themselves. The commissioner is not going to be able to get to the bottom of things without powers of entry and powers to seize documents. My strong convictions about the matter stem again from my visits with the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Australia and New Zealand, where we had long conversations with very experienced commissioners. It was their firm view that it was essential for the commissioner to have those powers. Their evidence is laid out clearly in the committee's report, recommending that there ought to be a children's commissioner. The powers are moderate, clearly limited and circumscribed.
	I also warmly support what other Members of the Committee have said about interviewing children in private.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: As I have already supported the inclusion of these powers during an earlier debate, I am not going to go into the same detail again. I have been extremely impressed by everything that has been said and would fully back it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, the issue about being able to interview children in private is absolutely crucial.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I shall say very briefly, because I do not want to detain the Committee, that very important principles have been laid out in the amendments. The Children's Commissioner for Wales wanted greater powers than were enshrined in the Act passed in 2001. I would ask that any such powers should be also be extended to allow the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to come near those of the commissioner in Northern Ireland. I have not tabled an amendment to that effect, but I know from the helpful discussions outside the Chamber that we have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that when we are considering matters relating to England we can consider the implications for Wales.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As noble Lords have indicated in moving and supporting the amendments, these two amendments seek to give the commissioner additional powers with respect to "formal investigations". The Committee will wish to put my remarks in the context of my earlier responses. I believe that I have explained why we are not minded to give the commissioner powers for any formal investigations or inquiries other than the power to conduct an inquiry when directed to do so by the Secretary of State. As the Committee will be aware, Clause 4 as it stands gives the commissioner the powers that he needs for the effective conduct of an inquiry.
	Amendment No. 67 would give the commissioner a range of new powers for the conduct of formal investigations, such as the power to enter property and seize documents. It is, of course, right that the commissioner should have the powers required to discharge the duties placed upon him or her, so an amendment of this type would be a natural sequel to any power to conduct formal investigations. However, as I indicated, as the Bill stands, the commissioner does not have that power except under the direction of the Secretary of State in Clause 4. I have indicated the reasons why we are not minded to give the commissioner such a power.
	Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have raised the following point. There is nothing in either the Clause 2 or the Clause 4 powers that prevents the commissioner interviewing children in private with all of the safeguards that Members of the Committee indicated regarding small children, families, permissions and so on. That is entirely appropriate.
	We do not think that these additional powers are necessary for the role we envisage under Clause 2 which does not entail casework. However, as I say, we would expect the commissioner to speak to individual children, to talk to children in private and to discuss with anyone relevant—as I have said several times this afternoon—the work that he wishes to undertake. However, we do not believe that he should have the power to seize documents or inspect premises.
	We have already provided the appropriate powers in respect of the commissioner's functions under Clause 4, if the commissioner is carrying out a formal inquiry. They include the ability to summon people to attend, give evidence or produce documents and enable him to administer oaths and take evidence under oath. It will be an offence to disobey a summons by refusing to give evidence or to tamper with documents. Under the commissioner's role as envisaged by the Government, we do not think it necessary to give the commissioner powers to enter property or to seize documents.
	I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about the need to involve the police in certain circumstances. I say to my noble friend Lady David, whom, as she knows, I hold in the highest respect, that the circumstances that she described in which the commissioner might enter premises gave me good cause to believe that we should not accept the amendments. If the commissioner were able to enter premises having received a phone call from a child, we would have created a post entirely different from that we have set out to create. It is very important that the inspectorates, the police and all those involved in the provision of services play their part in these matters. I accept that the commissioner might wish to call upon those services if he was concerned about a matter. I am convinced that the commissioner, with the oxygen of publicity that is available to him, would wish to see those services respond. However, the role that my noble friend suggests for the commissioner is different from that envisaged by the Government. We are very clear that the role of the commissioner is to support and enrich the work of developing services for children and to take the overview that I have described. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
	I turn to Amendment No. 68. This amendment would give the commissioner powers to ensure that, where he or she makes recommendations for action to be taken following a formal investigation, these are acted upon. It is certainly not the Government's intention that the commissioner's inquiry reports should sink without trace. Under Clause 4, if directed by the Secretary of State to undertake an inquiry, we would wish the commissioner to identify problems and to propose action to be taken and changes to be made. Reports should lead to action, as the Committee would expect, or to explanation of why the commissioner's recommendations have not been accepted or implemented.
	We believe that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to look to relevant bodies for responses and agreed action. If the Secretary of State's own department, or another government department were the subject of recommendations, Parliament would expect a response from the Government setting out what was being done to address those recommendations. As ever, the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament.
	I hope that the Committee will consider that I have answered the questions and responded to the issues within the context of the way in which we have drawn up the commissioner's role. It is important not to underestimate the public profile of the commissioner, the respect in which he will be held within the world of children's services and the ability, therefore, to attract interest and concern regarding the work that he will undertake. In the context of the commissioner who we have set up, we believe that these amendments are unnecessary. On that basis, I hope that they will be withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister for her full reflection on our debate and I am even more grateful for the points that have been raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. I fear that I must be getting very tired because I have listened carefully to the Minister's response and I cannot see where the powers that we are asking for are in Clause 4. As I said, I am a little weary so it could be that I am not seeing where it is and I hope the Minister can assist me with that.
	Secondly, I understand that the commissioner cannot insist, he can only be guided or directed by the Secretary of State. I do not think that he can insist in his own right but I am not sure about that. With regard to the commissioner having to respond very quickly to a child's call, that is certainly not our intention. I think that the Minister realises that and she is nodding her head, for which I am very grateful. As we said at the beginning of the day, these are seen as unusual cases that might be directed in that way.
	The last of the Minister's comments on which I would be grateful if she would come back to me is that she said that the report should lead to action. Yes, it should, but I cannot see that that is applicable as the Bill currently stands. Other noble Lords may also have queries but I would be grateful if the Minister would answer my four queries in response to her response to me.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall endeavour to answer the questions. I have a specific response to the noble Baroness's question on Clause 4. The special powers in Clause 4 are in subsections (7) to (9), which refer to other Acts. I am very happy to explain that in correspondence with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords. My understanding is that it is through the reference to those other Acts that we get the powers. I am very happy to clarify that further if that would help. When the noble Baroness said that the commissioner could only insist, I was not entirely certain precisely to what she was referring. I would be grateful if she would explain.

Baroness Byford: I think that I shall have to read Hansard very carefully tomorrow but from my understanding of what the Minister said, I thought that she was implying that the commissioner could not himself insist on entry.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Does the noble Baroness mean insist on entry to premises? I beg her pardon. The issue is between Clause 2 and Clause 4. Under the powers given in subsections (7) to (9), through these other Acts, it is my understanding that access would be available. I shall clarify that point because the noble Baroness has quite rightly raised it and I shall ensure that it is correct. If that is incorrect, I shall write to the noble Baroness. The differences between Clause 2 and Clause 4 are that Clause 4 is the formal inquiry, if I may describe it as such, instigated by the Secretary of State that brings with it a series of powers given under subsection (7) to (9) by reference to other Acts of Parliament. They enable the commissioner to do a number of things, including seizing documents and having witnesses, powers that he does not normally have in the day to day function of his job under Clause 2. That is the critical difference. In a sense, it is the line between where the noble Baroness wishes to be and where the Government currently are.
	I stand corrected. I have had a note that says that there is no right of access under either Clause 4 or Clause 2. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to pick that up with me. I shall clarify that point further and write to noble Lords about it because I would not wish to mislead the Committee on that.
	In terms of action, as the noble Baroness said, the issue with which we are all grappling during this long afternoon is how to ensure that action is taken as a consequence of inquiry reports.
	We have positioned the commissioner's work so that the action needs to be taken by the Government. The Secretary of State will have formally wanted the inquiry and published the inquiry's report. The Government, who are responsible to Parliament, will be responsible for ensuring that action is taken. I was also indicating that, in the normal course of the work of the commissioner and special inquiries, the oxygen of publicity will be a critical tool in enabling the commissioner to be clear about where people did not respond and where he is concerned about other issues. I would not underestimate that as an important part of our democratic process. In our proposals, however, the requirement for people to act on the formal inquiry would rest with the Secretary of State.
	I hope that that is clear. If it is not, I will be happy to clarify it in further correspondence.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for clarifying those queries and for returning to the one issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71A not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Relationship with other Commissioners]:
	[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]

Baroness Thornton: moved Amendment No. 74:
	Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
	"(d) to the extent that such matters relate to children in the Greater London area, take account of the views of and any work undertaken by the Assistant Children's Commissioner for London"

Baroness Thornton: This is a probing amendment. It might look like special pleading for London, but it is not. Were we discussing this Bill in two or three years' time, as regional government is rolled out, we could easily be saying the same about Yorkshire or the east Midlands. As a government are already in place in London, we can use it as an example of how the Bill's regional aspects might work out. That is what this amendment is about.
	The Bill should be amended to include provision for an Assistant Children's Commissioner for London. That will ensure that there is an appropriate regional mechanism within the national commissioner structure so that proper account can be taken of the diverse needs, rights, views and interests of—in this case—London's children, as well as those of London's governmental structures and policies.
	Although there may be a case for a separate London commissioner, I think we would all agree that that model could be confusing to London's children, young people and the wider public. It would assume some knowledge of the different roles and responsibilities of national and regional government. It may be duplicating and lead to potential gaps in service delivery. The preference must therefore be for a model within the national commissioner structure to ensure external clarity and external coherence.
	I raised this issue on Second Reading, as did several other noble Lords. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, said that assistant commissioners in the regions would match devolution and be able to respond to local people and local needs. She is completely correct. It is important that the Children's Commissioner's role must extend to monitoring and promoting and protecting children's rights in the development of policy and legislation at Westminster, alongside an appropriate regional structure to ensure that the commissioner can do his job properly.
	An Assistant Children's Commissioner for London would be able to operate with an understanding of the complexity of well established regional government—the GLA—and other London-wide structures. This role would ensure that the Children's Commissioner function is apprised of and engaged at local government level in health, social care, education and, crucially, with the role of regional government in planning, community safety, culture and transport policies as they affect children.
	Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999—which some noble Lords will remember putting through the House—the Mayor's statutory responsibilities, as I am sure he will recall, include the preparation of strategies, plans and policies for London covering transport, spatial development, planning, culture, ambient noise—I remember that one—air quality, waste management, biodiversity and economic development. In addition, the Mayor has a range of specific powers and duties and a general power to do anything that will promote economic and social development and environmental improvement in London.
	As children and young people are major users of the public realm and have expressed strong interest in those areas, they are particularly susceptible to, for example, the effects of environmental degradation, poor air quality and unsafe play areas. Children's opportunities to play in green and open spaces are being addressed in a GLA group by the London Plan and its supplementary and best practice guidance, while children's community safety issues come within the remit of the Metropolitan Police Authority and Service, Transport for London and the London Child Protection Committee. I am saying this because it amplifies the point about why and how addressing the regional issues would make the job of the Children's Commissioner easier and would address at an appropriate level the sorts of issues that one would wish to have addressed—in this case in London.
	An assistant children's commissioner for London would be required to safeguard the interests and rights of London's 1.62 million children and young people and their unique diversity and specific issues. On a population basis alone, London has two-and-a-half times the number of children and young people than Wales, nearly three times the number in Scotland and one-and-a-half times the number in Northern Ireland—which is why, indeed, they have their own commissioners. On numbers alone one could make the same argument about my own home county of Yorkshire and other regions of the country.
	This is a probing amendment. We want to have this discussion and it is important that it is addressed in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The appointment of a children's commissioner in London would be a good idea and I, too, hope that it would be the first of a set of regional assistant commissioners. Earlier today I addressed the issue of the size of the population of children in the UK—not from the point of view of diluting the powers of the English Children's Commissioner, rather to give more resources and divide them up regionally.
	The region is a practical and effective level for developing consultation mechanisms and engagement with children and young people. Consultations by the Office of the Children's Rights Commissioner for London highlighted that children particularly identify with their neighbourhood and their city, when raising quality of life, safety and well-being issues with their representatives. A regional commissioner structure is also needed in London to reflect the diversity of London's children—41 per cent of London's children and young people aged under 18 belong to black, Asian or minority ethnic groups. That figure is even higher in inner-London; namely, 53 per cent. Between them they speak about 300 different languages.
	A similar diversity occurs in my region, the north-west, where I hope that sometime in the future we will have regional government. So I support both the detail of the requirement for a London commissioner and the principle that he or she should be the first of a series of assistant commissioners, who together form a commission for England's children.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I rise briefly to support the amendment, simply because I have argued from the drafting of the Bill that it would be useful to have a commission, rather than a commissioner with a body of people outside in the regions. I believe that then we would have had a very different debate about the Bill, because some of the issues would have been different.
	However, Norfolk, Cornwall and Yorkshire are as different as Scotland, Ireland and Wales and in time there will be no alternative but to develop a different structure for the representation of those children. I hope that we then have coherence with the central commissioner so that such issues as we have debated today do not have to be reconsidered every time a region appoints a commissioner.

Earl Howe: I have considerable sympathy with the amendments. They raise the very pertinent question of how the responsibilities exercised by elected regional assemblies in England can best be married up with those exercised by the Children's Commissioner. Without repeating all the extremely well put points about London, I recognise that in London particularly the issues are stark. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, there are acute challenges associated with ethnic diversity, poverty and ill health that need to be addressed. This is a very neat way forward.

Lord Tope: I support the amendments. I declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly and the Greater London Authority; I hope to be so again after 10 June. I am also a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a London borough councillor.
	In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness was careful, and proper, to say that there was no special pleading for London. However, in view of the interests that I have just declared, perhaps I might be forgiven for making a little special pleading for London. The case has been made very well. We have an existing structure of regional government of sorts in London, and we have such aspirations for the rest of the country. I am sure that that will need to be considered when the time comes.
	London has a very large population of young people. Not only is it large in number, but, as other Members of the Committee have said, it is very diverse. In inner London more than half the population of young people is from a black or ethnic minority background. The case has been made for particular consideration to be given to London's particular circumstances at present, in the complex structure of governance, the size and, in particular, diversity of the population of young people. We all look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Andrews: It is not often that I am called upon to respond to an election address. It went slightly beyond special pleading, but I take the point entirely. The children of London have had some very eloquent advocates speaking on their behalf in the past quarter of an hour. We would not dispute that London is a complex, large, diverse and very challenging community. As the noble Earl said, there are very stark issues involved. The GLA had for three years its own pilot in London of a Children's Rights Commissioner, whose record of listening to children was very successful. We are obviously very pleased about that.
	However, the issues raised in the debate apply beyond London. We must reflect on the fact that other communities across the country, although they may not be as large, are certainly as diverse in the nature of their neighbourhoods and the challenges that they pose. When we talk about London in this context, we must reflect that a model for London takes us into the issue of models for other regions.
	The noble Baroness made an eloquent case, not for a commissioner—she was very clear about that—but for an assistant commissioner, and explained why. We must be very careful at this stage in the development of the office of Children's Commissioner in the suggestions that we put or the prescriptions that we make to the potential commissioner and his office.
	In particular, rural areas, which are sometimes relatively invisible, are no less complex, particularly as regards what they can or cannot offer young people. A serious attempt should be made to ensure that the interests of young people in rural areas are considered. One such young person said to me recently, "It may look like landscape to you; it actually looks very empty to me, when the only thing around is the bus station or the bus stop where I can meet my friends". We need to take that matter seriously.
	While we are looking closely at the emerging office of the commissioner, we are on the threshold of some very dynamic development in regional issues and government in this country. I would suggest to the noble Lords that these first months or years may not be the right time to overload the commissioner with a set of new challenges, until the office itself beds down. Having said that, we have had some debate about what is "all children": the inclusivity of the nature of the challenge that he is faced with. My noble friend Baroness Ashton has made it very clear that "all children" means all children in every part of the country. To that extent, while I think we have to be very careful about over-prescription at this stage, we feel the commissioner has to find his or her own ways of working with, and prioritising, issues as the office emerges and develops, notwithstanding these powerful arguments. There is a danger of prescribing something which could turn out to be over-bureaucratic, and we would suddenly find ourselves with an inappropriately complex structure, something that would hinder, rather than enable, him in discharging his duties.
	As regards some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, raised, the commissioner has a staff: a non-departmental public body. He is able to delegate the work of his staff, and it may be that he decides some of his staff should look after the interests of children in some of the regions. Whether you call this an office—a commission rather than a commissioner—we may have a debate about. Nevertheless, it will be a non-departmental public body with the capacity to do that. I am keen to make the case that he should have the independence to determine the priorities and how best to use those resources.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was extremely thorough in Amendment No. 77, having defined the functions of the assistant commissioner in Amendment No. 74, and argued about how to place a duty on the Children's Commissioner with regard to the assistant commissioner's work. If minded to accept her main amendment, we would feel that what she had done in subsequent amendments was perfectly reasonable.
	Under the circumstances, however, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment at this stage, because it is inappropriate in terms of the development of the office as we see it, for the reasons I have explained.

The Earl of Listowel: I am sorry not to have been present for the earlier debate. As the Minister was mentioning "all children", just to be absolutely clear, does that include children either on remand or in custody?

Baroness Andrews: Yes.

Baroness Thornton: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I also thank noble Lords for their support, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Tope. As a former chair of the London Labour Party, I am quite used to special pleading on behalf of London, and do not have a problem with doing that.
	The problem we face here is that this is going to happen willy-nilly. London's government is not going to wait for the commissioner to take a long time to make their mind up about how to address the needs of London's children. I suspect there will also be debates in other regional assemblies in the making around the country. I accept that one does not want to prescribe how the Children's Commissioner should do his job. However, I would put in a plea that the opportunity to provide the framework in this legislation, allowing there to be co-ordination across the country as regional assemblies exist, should be taken. I would also put a plea in that the department examine whether or not that is possible within this Bill. Even if it is not acceptable to create an assistant commissioner for London at this stage, the position of assistant commissioners—or whatever we call them—to deal with such issues should be addressed.
	It is not a competition between the needs of rural children and those of London's children. I am disappointed that we touched on that, because that is not the point. The point is to make sure that children everywhere are properly represented. I suspect that, whatever happens in the elections, the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor will address the problem anyway. We should make sure that it is done without creating confusion for children. I suspect that we will return to the matter, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 75:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW WORKING OF PART 1 OF THE ACT
	(1) The Children's Commissioner shall—
	(a) keep under review the working of Part 1 of this Act and in doing so consult with children and representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests;
	(b) make reports on it to the Secretary of State in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
	(2) The first report under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part.
	(3) A subsequent report under this section shall be made at such time as the Children's Commissioner thinks fit, not being earlier than three years after the making of the last previous report.
	(4) A report under this section—
	(a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this Part; and
	(b) may contain recommendations as to amendments to this Part which in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner are necessary or desirable.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament."

Earl Howe: The creation of a Children's Commissioner for England has been widely welcomed. Although, as the Minister knows, we hope that the role and powers of the commissioner can be amplified and strengthened in certain ways, Part 1 of the Bill is, nevertheless, a decided step forward for children in England, giving them a powerful listening ear and an equally powerful voice.
	The independent organisations that have been in touch with me—the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, the National Children's Bureau, the NSPCC and many others—have pointed to the legislative framework for the Northern Ireland commissioner as the model to aspire to. The functions of the Northern Ireland commissioner include the promotion of the rights and best interests of children; advocacy; assisting and intervening in legal proceedings; reviewing whistle blowing and complaints procedures; and investigating complaints. Alongside that, the commissioner has been granted a range of independent powers. However, the Northern Ireland Assembly understood—as did Parliament—that, even within that strong framework, there was a need for a periodic review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the commissioner's powers. In Amendment No. 75, I propose that there should be provision for such a periodic review for the English commissioner.
	In launching the Bill, the Government described the creation of a Children's Commissioner as a "historic first"—I think that those were the words—and we all recognise that the creation of a commissioner carries with it huge expectations, as was said a while ago. Something like 130 organisations concerned with children and young people have campaigned for a children's rights champion and watchdog for over 10 years. It is in everyone's interests, not least those of children but also those of the commissioner himself or herself, to make sure, after an appropriate interval, that we have the kind of effective champion that so many have waited for. I suggest that, in reviewing Part 1 of the Act and making recommendations to government, the commissioner should be required to consult children and representatives of children's organisations. I hope that the Minister will see the virtue of the proposal. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I support the noble Earl's amendment. I hope also that, in conducting the review after the specified period, the commissioner could reflect on the powers that he or she has and the consequences of lacking the powers that he or she has not had, in the light of what is done by the commissioners in the other jurisdictions.
	We are having heated debates about the powers and independence of the commissioner, and who knows how the Bill will come out at the end? However, I would be surprised if, at the end of the Bill's passage through both Houses, the new commissioner had exactly the same powers as those in the other three jurisdictions, who all have slightly different powers anyway. I would hope that the review would be conducted in the light of what he or she can do and what he or she might like to be able to do.

Lord Elton: I take it that this is a different report from the annual report that one would expect. It is an imaginative addition to the expectation of an annual report that would encourage the commissioner to look at the framework in which he or she is working in a critical and constructive way. That is not always the case when people operate under this sort of arrangement.
	I wondered whether a refinement would be to require all the Children's Commissioners to conduct a consultation and a single report at the end of the period, so that they could compare the relative performance under the different legislative requirements that they at present have.
	I also cannot resist noticing the regularity that is required of the report. I recall what was said a little earlier today about what had been said in another place about the Welsh commissioner. I think that the regularity will be a reassurance to the Minister. The fact that it is triennial and that the Welsh Children's Commissioner was upbraided, we understand, for producing only one report in three years may cause her some thought. Basically, I think that this is an imaginative idea, which I hope will be taken up.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, support this amendment. I agree that it is an imaginative proposal, which would be very important. If the Minister's proposals go through in their current form, there will be a fair amount of disquiet about the fairly limited powers, which some would call weak, that the commissioner has. To have a specific requirement to make such a report, rather than to have perhaps an expectation that something might be said in an annual report, would be very helpful and reassuring to those of us who still would wish for something stronger.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I entirely understand the thinking behind the noble Earl's amendment. The Children's Commissioner would be ideally placed to provide independent scrutiny of the legislation in consultation with children and the organisations that work with them. But the Government consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Under the Bill, the commissioner can do this anyway.
	In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if the commissioners decide that they want to do something together, it is my understanding that they can do that. There is nothing to stop them.

Lord Elton: I apologise for intervening because it is late. Does the noble Baroness not accept that something that the commissioners publish of their own volonte would have much less weight than something that they had to do because it was required by statute.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about that. When people do things that they wish to do, in some ways that carries more weight than when they do something that they are required to do. We have had many deliberations today about the question of independence and that the commissioner should determine what the commissioner does. I believe that this is an example where I can honestly say that we are very clear that the commissioner can do this if the commissioner wishes to. That is very important. By formally requesting the commissioner to do that, we would impose a burden that we do not wish to impose on the commissioner.
	It is clear, as I have said many times in your Lordships' House, that the focus of the commissioner's work is to talk to children and young people; to look at what they want the commissioner to do; to get their work programme, in a sense, from what children feel is important to children; and to organise the workload of the commissioner as the commissioner sees fit in the light of those deliberations. As an independent children's champion, it must be for the commissioner to determine, in consultation with children, what they are doing, and, in consultation with children and children's organisations, how and when a review of the legislation is relevant and appropriate.
	There is nothing to stop the commissioner from doing that. It may well be that the commissioner will wish to do that. The commissioner may wish to do it in consultation or in conjunction with other commissioners. It is entirely up to the commissioner as an independent champion to determine that. On that basis, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Howe: In the last group of amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke of the need to let the office of the commissioner "bed down". I do not disagree with that, but someone must take a view on how that bedding down process has worked. There is considerable merit in building in a formal provision for such a review to take place.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said that the commissioner could do what he or she wanted in regard to conducting a review, but I should have thought that was true only within the legislative framework provided for the commissioner. It is interesting to hear the Minister say that the legislative framework does allow for that, but that begs a number of questions in the context of our earlier debates today about the powers of the commissioner. It also raises questions about the financial provision being made for the commissioner. No review of this kind would be cost free.
	In any event, at this hour I shall not pursue the matter further. I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall reflect on what she has said between now and the Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.